The War Room

National Post Censors Conservative Ad then Claims Not for Censorship

2011-09-30T19:45:00.000-07:00

So, the "courageous" National Post has apologized for an ad that offended a certain segment of society that one is no longer allowed to offend because some people are a little bit more equal than others in modern day Canada.

And of course, what they do is what all gutless types do. Say that they defend free speech while saying the ad is "manipulative" while not once adressing the fact that all of the facts of the ad are not in dispute.

Well yes...ever advertisment ever created is made to use facts to bring the consumer around to a point using coercive visuals and imagery. That is manipulation. It is the nature of advertising. Progressives use it all the time.

Remember these government ads from a few years back. Ontario had their own version with a picture of the child behind bars. I recall they were all along Queen Street in Toronto.

Regardless of how you feel about this sex ed curriculum that reads as though it was written by Dan Savage, there is nothing that the Post says that is consistent with their purported view in favour of free speech. They can spin it anyway they want...this is exactly as it seems. A supposed conservative/libertarian newspaper bowing to the pressure of an extremely well financed and powerful lobby. Period. Full stop.

The Post has some good columnists but I will never pay for the paper again. It must also be noted that absolutely nothing in the ad is deemed to be untrue. Nothing. Everything the ad says is being taught... is.

And that is how the left always gets the right. Not on truth or facts, but on intangibles. Saying something is offensive but being unwilling to quantify that offense. A progressive trait if ever there was one.

Well, I hope the Post enjoys their new progressive readership in the wake of Sun News. I certainly will never buy their sad excuse for a gutless tabloid again.

BIN LADEN'S DEAD: HYPOCRITICAL PROGRESSIVE EDITION

2011-05-01T21:48:00.000-07:00

Collective Voice of Progressives during the Bush Administration: Bush caused 911! Bush called in the planes! Killing Bin Laden will only create more heads on the Hydra! Stay out of Afghanistan! Bring the troops home now! No blood for oil!

Collective Voice of Progressives after Obama catches Bin Laden: Awesome! Way to go! Terrorism is dead!

Collective Voice of Canadian Progressives after Obama catches Bin Laden: Awesome! Bin Laden is dead! Let's go vote Jack Layton!

Dumbass Hypocrites. All.

THEO CALDWELL: THE RIGHT WING AVI LEWIS

2011-04-20T22:28:00.000-07:00

I'll have more to say about Sun News later...but wowza.

Theo Caldwell is everything I am not. A smug, rich, UCC educated caricature of a pundit who has not earned his views but inherited them through his lineage.

Is there something I am missing about this little right wing punk?

Everything nasty in the left that made me go right is in lil' Theo. He makes me root for the left.

That's not easy to do.

IF PARLIAMENT ONLY MET ONCE A YEAR FOR A FEW DAYS, WOULD THAT BE DEMOCRATIC?

2011-04-20T15:54:00.000-07:00

According to Canadian Parliamentary Law, our constitution only requires that Parliament meet at least once a year. That session can in theory last as little as a few days.

That is law. It is the "rule" as Mr. Ignatieff would say.

Tell me, if Parliament only met once a year, for only a few days, would that be democratic?

IGGY TALK OF TAKE OVER IS NOT GIFT; IT IS A CALCULATED MOVE

2011-04-19T21:40:00.001-07:00

Make no mistake. Ignatieff and Bob Rae both speaking of a Liberal take over of Parliament in the event of a Conservative minority is not a gift or a gaffe. It is a well calculated move.

It will be downplayed by the media and if Harper gets a minority they will then be able to say they did not hide their cards. They will then spin that the public voted as a monolith and did not want a Harper majority.

They know this. They know it will not be widely or repeatedly (and that makes a difference) reported.

But remember, there is a world of difference between following the word of the law and then having that reflect democracy.

These men confuse Marxism with democracy and democracy with fascism, hence Ignatieff's childish but dangerous "Rise Up" rant. Make no mistake, when progressives call conservatives, Nazis or Fascists...they mean it. His Mao reference was not a mistake. It was a real reference to this child's world view. They are unhinged. Irrational and illogical. The children of the baby boomers who believe up is down, down is up, black is white and white is black.

Beware...things are about to get very dirty. And yes, those Liberal phone calls were probably done by the party members themself.

On Lara Logan tragedy...

2011-02-16T16:47:00.000-08:00

1. This is a tragedy.

2. It is a real story and the details – should – be known. I know it throws people into a tiff when the victim is a reporter covering a story, but then that becomes the story and this should be front page news. Reporters cover tragedy all the time…no reason why this should be any different; even if it is awkward.

3. It is part of the story because it shows a fissure in the narrative. The mainstream media narrative on this has been a childish “good Muslim rebels vs. evil Western backed dictator”. This shows that that narrative is false, and again, the media is so unwilling to even begin to understand the brutality that comes to many women in Islamic countries.

4. The phrase used in the release, “brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating,” to me suggests multiple gang rapes. True unmitigated horror. If that is what happened, then that should be told. The term sexual assault is too vague; legally it can mean anything from rape to a mere tweak of the buttock. Why is the left so afraid of confronting this issue?

5. Guaranteed, that either before the end of this television season or during next, at least one of the legal or medical shows on tv will feature an episode where a blonde journalist is gang raped by a bunch of evangelicals at a Tea Party rally while a bunch of Muslims come to her rescue. Guaranteed. Charlize Theron will probably be courted for a feature version that shows Coptic Christians were responsible.

6. The Western progressive left, is out to bloody lunch when it comes to even remotely understanding fundamentalist Islam. Logan is a victim, but she is a victim not only of fundamentalist Islam, but of western ignorance. I hope she continues to report, and the next time she is in a newsroom and a group of her collegues is preparing a piece on the evangelical theocracy or the patriarchal evils of Catholics while lamenting the post 9/11 backlash against the “religion of peace”, she can loudly clear her throat and set the record straight.

THINKING OF COMING BACK

2010-03-20T11:33:00.001-07:00

Thinking of coming back.

It's been almost two years since I posted. In that time I have...

...become a father...

...made some decent inroads into a career...

...had a first hand experience with some of the nastiest people I have ever encountered and you know what...they were conservative Evangelicals...

...lost some friends whom I previously held dear...

...made some new ones...

...realized that someone I admired was only human...

...further realized that culture drives politics...not the other way around.

EINSTEIN SAYS BELIEF IN GOD "CHILDISH SUPERSTITION"

2008-05-14T11:38:00.000-07:00

Nicol says, "So what."

Atheists around the world took great comfort in this and revealed themselves as little more than faith based followers of another kind for it.

The most childish notion that the Einstein quote brings with it is the notion that all atheists are defacto "smart" and all theists defacto not. This is simple, facile and juvenile reasoning.

Remember, belief in God is a philosophical and theological question. Not a question of science. Einstein was a brilliant scientist, but neither a philosopher nor theologian.

Do atheists really believe that only an atheist can be a scientist? That scientists are not also swayed by the culture of the day or political correctness? That notion is laughably unsophisticated.

Also remember that Einstein was writing at a time when we did not know that atheists under the guise of Marxists would create the greatest genocides in human history.

Perhaps had he lived in the modern era Einstein would realize whose views were truly "childish".

REPRESSED AGGRESSION IN THE LEFT WING MALE

2008-05-05T09:22:00.000-07:00

One of the topics that I have always found fascinating is the notion of the feminization of the modern male. I actually used to buy into it wholeheartedly. That a generation of men, weaned on feminist theory in academia and role models who skew more Leo Dicaprio than John Wayne were far more passive than their right wing counterparts.

Now, I am not so sure.

One of the things I have noticed lately - say in the past couple of years - is how aggressive my left-wing male friends have become with me. Even if I do not bring up the topic of politics or religion, they seem to always have an edge on. When challenged casually on a subject of progressive othodoxy they will most often resort to vicious snark and sarcasm for long periods of time, not wanting to talk it out more rationally. This is not true of them all of course. But many of them.

Two weeks ago, a very left-wing actor friend and I were working at a private school for the day. He came in all edgy and snarky from the get go (it was a private school in a small town- he thought it was beneath him) and started making asinine remarks.

Finally, I made a comment about how most of these rich kids were probably Che Guevara lovers. He went silent and then acted like a petulant, spoiled brat all day. Snark, sarcasm, verbal bullying behaviour. He wouldn't even sit for longer than 5 minutes at lunch to eat with the staff. On a break when we went into the small town he mocked me and a cafe clerk when he couldn't get an espresso. Total cliche stuff, here.

The relation between science, Darwinism and feminism has always been tenuous at best as is evidenced by this over a decade old article in the NY Times.

"Many feminists have eyed certain aspects of Darwinian thought with deep suspicion, particularly when evolutionary explanations have been marshaled to explain human characteristics like the inequality of the sexes in most cultures around the world, or boys' supposed superiority over girls in mathematics. To many feminists, the relentless search for an innate basis to complex human behaviors smacks of a quest for easy answers -- and handy excuses for the status quo. "

Darwin took a view of human evolution and sexuality that was very much in line with natural law; that aggression in males is a natural trait. Feminist theory of course says this is not true and it has only been indoctrinated into males by a "patriarchal, right-wing Judeo-Christian power culture".

This is a flawed theory, not the least is the fact that there are aggressive males in cultures that are not Judeo-Christian and are matriarchal.

So, if we take the scientific approach that Darwin is correct and aggression in the human male is natural, it would make sense that left wing males who adhere to a doctrine of modern progressive feminism which tells them to repress their aggression would be the ones most likely to have that rage simmering under the surface. That is not to say that every left wing male is on the verge of walking into a post office with a rifle. That would be silly.

But think of the past 30 or so years in our culture since feminism really became an influential ideology.

Did "war mongers" George Bush or Ronald Reagan ever have the bursting anger moment that feminist Bill Clinton did on Fox news a year or so ago?

Who brutally thrashed that protester a few years ago, Jean Chretien or "neanderthal" Stockwell Day?

Where do you think you would be more prone to find violence: at a weekend gathering of Hells Angels or at an anti -American "peace" rally? If you're honest, I think the answer to this one is up in the air.

Think of all the violent protests from the 60's? University protests in general? Are they ever peaceful?

Think of blogging culture; which ones use the most violent language and are the most extreme? Right or left? I do not know of any mainstream conservative blogs that even approach the level of anger and vitriol that even a casual glance at rabble will show. I realize there are extremes on both sides but you have to go to some very dark corners of the internet to find extreme right-wing blogs. Left wing blogs that routinely call for the "rape" of Ann Coulter as a "joke" are commonplace.

When I was in university, I long maintained that the worst and most aggressive students and profs that were opposed to free speech and dissent were the left -wing men...not the women.

The men I know who are the most sexually aggressive, least likely to use condoms and leave women lying in the lurch are also the most die-hard feminists.

Even in my current life, I find most of my left-wing female friends will disagree with me, but listen and find what I say fascinating. I rarely feel disrespected by them. Many of the males, usually respond with anger, sarcasm and childish aggression.

Who are modern pop cultural left-wing male role models for the Gen-X and Y'ers? Saying "pretty boys" like DiCaprio is too easy. No, their role models are passive-aggressive aging man-boys like Bill Maher, David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Sean Penn etc.

All right, Sean Penn is just aggressive.

I realize all of this evidence is anecdotal, but I believe there is something to it. The reason I had to choose an article from 1994 is because we are not allowed to ask these questions anymore; feminist theory being the orthodoxy of our culture.

It would also account for why women still have problems on the corporate ladder when the wealthiest corporate men in Canada and America claim to be Liberals and Democrats. Bay Street has overwhlemingly went Liberal since Chretien and Obama is the current big corporate face in the States.

Again, I am not talking about aggression in a "who supports the war or owns a gun" sort of way. I mean aggression in a latent, repressed, passive- aggressive, ready to boil over kind of way.

I think that in a generation or two, this might be a topic well worthy of study.

CHARLES CACCIA - MAY GOD HAVE MORE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL THAN YOU DID ON YOUR CONSTITUENTS

2008-05-04T22:09:00.000-07:00

From Joan Tintor, we find that Charles Caccia, Liberal MP for the Davenport riding from 1968 -04 died this weekend from a stroke.
I lived in the Davenport riding from 2001-2004 and remember Caccia very well.

I remember that when I called his constituency office to make an appointment I could never get through.

I remember that when I left messages they were never returned.

I remember that when I looked for a website he did not have one.

I remember when I wrote him regarding same sex marriage I did not get a response. Not even a token form letter.

I remember that he gladly exploited his Italian Catholic heritage to get votes from a largely naive Italian Catholic riding while all the while being one of the most left-wing, viciously anti-Catholic MP's in Parliamentary history.

I remember that under his watch the Davenport riding was one of the poorest ridings in all of Canada and Ontario and not once did I see him do a thing about it.

I have no idea where Charles Caccia is right now. I hope he is in a better place. I hope he made peace with God before he died. In my opinion, he exploited the good will of the people of Davenport while doing nothing for them that I could see for over three decades. He plied on the naivete of the Italian-Canadian community (yes, as an Italian I can say they are painfully naive and exploited by Liberals like Caccia and Joe Volpe). Based on my time in Davenport I can say nothing good about Charles Caccia as an MP.

Not. One. Thing.

I saw poor old Italian-Catholic men wearing his buttons knowing he did nothing for them. I saw conservative Catholics vote for him knowing that once he got to parliament his votes held their views in contempt.

It is rare I say a bad thing about someone on this blog. I try to deal with ideas...not names.

For Charles Caccia, because he was Italian and I am too I will make an exception.

If someone can find one good thing he did for that community let me know and I will publish it. But for all I saw, he was a decrepit leftist who exploited his race, nationality and religious heritage to sit in parliament for decades and do nothing.

May God have more mercy on his soul than he did on his constituents.

SHOCK: LIBERALS COULD NOT RID CHILD POVERTY

2008-05-01T14:00:00.001-07:00

Child poverty is not a joke. But the notion that a Liberal government could pass a resolution to end it is.

"Almost a decade after the deadline by which the House of Commons was unanimously resolved to eliminate child poverty, Statistics Canada says there are still almost 900,000 children living in the poorest of homes. "

Perhaps we can also pass legislation to end murder and stife. Perhaps another House of Commons resolution could be called upon to eliminate really bad hair days and stubbing your toe. Then we can pass another legislation whereby we can all be born with pots o' gold under our cribs and rain will turn to beer on days of important sporting events.

I am constantly amazed at how upside down most progressives see the world.

CRONENBERG AND POLLEY ARE THE CENSORS

2008-05-01T07:56:00.000-07:00

I have wanted to write about this issue for some time in more depth but many things have made it very difficult, not the least of which is encroaching parenthood and career opportunities.

But this article in the Globe I did want to comment on.

David Cronenberg on Bill C-10:

"In essence, all Canadian filmmaking is independent filmmaking and we are very dependent on government money to have a film industry, and so denial of that money is tantamount to censorship. Everybody knows it. They can put up their façade all they want, but everybody, including them, knows it."

Cronenberg wants us to buy into a view of defacto censorship. The problem with this is that Cronenberg incorrectly assumes that there is not already censorship that occurs at the funding agencies as to what films will or will not get financed and who gets the money.

As a screenwriter in Canada, I have no problem telling you that there - is - defacto censorship in the English Canadian Film Industry as to what films get financed, what subject matter is chosen and how much money people will get. The Quebec system is very different and they have a good merging of art and commerce.

I had lunch with a former reader at one of the funding agencies last summer. She told me that when she started she would be - told - to refuse development money for well written mainstram scripts by unknown writers in favour of lesser quality scripts by more esoteric filmmakers who were already in the system and depended on the money for support.

Much like the Human Rights Commissions which started out with noble intentions and then morphed into a place where they just need to be torn down, that is what is wrong with this system. That does not mean that there have not been good films or filmmakers produced under the system. People like Atom Egoyan, Bruce McDonald, Paul Gross and many others are very talented but there are too many sub-tier "artists" that get money that are not.

Let's put it another way...we all know and love American film.

Imagine if you looked back on the history of American film and there were no films about football. No films about baseball. No films about Vietnam, WWII or Iraq.

No superhero movies.

No Raiders of the Lost Ark, no Star Wars. No Field of Dreams, no Knute Rockne. No Apocalypse Now, no Green Berets. No It's a Wonderful Life. No Foxy Brown, no QT. No John Wayne or John Ford. No Oliver Stone, no George Clooney.

What if the only films America made were by Todd Haynes and Todd Solondz.

Don't know who there are. Look at the resumes. That's what we have in Canada. Mostly films made by extremist fringe "artists" and "personalities" who do not have to answer to the public to get their films made. It is a gravy train that keeps on moving. It is an impenetrable system to those who are not in the loop.

The rules for funding regulations constantly get re-written and you never know if you qualify. And if you do qualify but are unknown, you might get a call telling you that you do not qualify and will have to fight to get through (that happend to me and two other people I know). If you do not qualify but know people in the agency...it doesn't matter. I know one person who did not qualify but was friends with readers at the agency and said he was promised thousands. There are no checks and balances and nobody ever gets questioned.

A corporation knows it might get audited. With Canadian film funding agencies, there are no such scenarios.

It is a corrupt, broken system.

Cronenberg must know this and is also being disingenuous because the majority of funding for his films comes from either Britain and America. Cronenberg (who is wealthy by any common defintion I might add) takes token amounts from the funding agencies for script development so that he can qualify for Canadian awards. He does not need the money and has had numerous offers to direct Hollywood blockbusters throughout his entire career. He has been offered everything from Top Gun to Beverly Hills Cop 2 to Basic Instinct 2. And I say this as someone who is a fan and loves the man's work. I even loved his most controversial work Crash. I even defended him in film school when the feminists said he was a misogynist and not a "true" Canadian filmmaker.

Cronenberg does not have a dog in this fight. Neither does Sarah Polley who is also a Hollywood darling and very wealthy. They have no problem getting work.

What bothers me are the multitudes of filmmakers (writers, actors, directors etc.) who are getting conned by these two into buying into a system that will - NEVER - allow them to make the films they want.

Young film school students who are buying into a myth that they are fighting alongside their heroes like Polley and Cronenberg for free speech when the very system that they are fighting for will see them out of the industry in 5 years waiting tables.

Cronenberg says this is defacto censorship because Canada has an independant system. The problem is, the reason we have that system is because left-wing filmmakers like Polley and Cronenberg do not want a system based on private capital. They will take private capital gigs when they want to...they just do not want other artists to have the same opportunity.

Bill C- 10 will not change the industry. It will be this way for a long time. But plenty of filmmakers out there are not being heard who - do - want change. Not even conservatives, just people tired of the same people getting the same funding to make films that nobody wants to see.

I do not want a conservative film industry. I just want a level playing field where all Canadian voices are heard. That is not happening now.

Bill C- 10 is not a solution, but it is a step in the right direction.

Anyone who defends the current system is the true censor.

FILMMAKERS CRY CENSORSHIP! NICOL CRIES HYPOCRISY!

2008-02-29T08:42:00.000-08:00

This is exactly the kind of baby step I have wanted to see from a conservative government for a long time. And it is a baby step.

Of course, other papers like the Globe and Mail are trying to fear monger about this being an Evaneglical movement.

In one article, David Cronenberg alludes that this is something found in a communist country.

The irony of course is lost on him that a majority of filmmakers in Canada have a Marxist worldview and that the government funding of art itself is a communist proposal.

I am a screenwriter who writes here under a pseudonym. Nicol Dumoulin is a derivation of, but not my real name. I can tell you that there is certainly censorship in the Toronto/Vancouver English Canadian film industry by persons at funding agencies. Nine times out of ten if the script you are peddling is a genre (action, comedy, drama etc.) you get shut out.

Nine times out of ten if your script does not explicitly deal with the world from a left wing, secular, urban white perspective, you do not get funding. If your script does feature "alternative sex" you will most likely go to the front of the list.

The late film critic John Harkness of EYE magazine knew this too well. After he died, this essay of his made the rounds. He was perceptive:

"...you have to satisfy a group of well-meaning, highly educated cultural bureaucrats. This means three or four things. It means that a filmmaker would be far likelier to get approval for a move that espouses whatever liberal cause is fashionable at the moment than for anything truly audacious, unsettling or interesting. I suspect that the entire career of the terminally tedious Anne Wheeler is based on the fact that she’s a “two-fer” – a woman director and a regional director in one package, fulfilling a big chunk of whatever unconscious quota system exists in the minds of the culture-crats. (and that system exists.

A few years ago, I was talking to one of the principals in Deepa Mehta’s Sam and Me, who told they had a devil of a time getting funding because, someone at Telefilm Canada told them, Telefilm already had an Indian film that year.)When something daring comes through the English-Canadian offices of Telefilm, like John Greyson’s Zero Patience or Srivinas Krishna’s Masala, one can bet that it is being funded not because it is daring, but because it fulfills some minority quotas."

What these filmmakers crying censorship do not - cannot - make the case for is why in 2008, should the government be funding and films at all?

I am a free speech libertarian. I am also a screenwriter in Toronto and I can tell you that the type of censorship that occurs is within the agencies themselves in the type of films and scripts that are chosen. Many people will admit to this in private but do not in public for fear of being blacklisted. Yes, it is that bad and I know I have hurt my chances of success by voicing my views on several occasions.

It is worse than Hollywood because that is private capital.

Even more noxious because these films do not even find an audience at home. This battle is only the first step, but like Harkness, I call for an eradication of all funds from the Canadian Film Industry.

It is time for the baby bird to be thrown out of the nest and the maturation process to begin.

MATERNAL DEMOCRACY

2008-02-21T03:57:00.000-08:00

So, as I have announced here previously, my wife and I are having our first wonderful child, due in May. We cannot wait to meet her.

Now, my wife is taking maternity classes just up the road from us and while she has nothing but great things to say about the establishment where they take place, the other day she had an interesting story.

She said that many women were requesting that their husbands be allowed to take the class with them. The instructor then said they would put it to a vote.

The result:

Every woman wanted their husband present except for one single mother who said it would make her feel awkward.

Guess what that meant?

No men allowed.

I respect that the single mother is going through the process she is and think she should be given much love and respect. But the fact that the vote meant the one outweighed the majority says much about the nature or child rearing in progressive Canada and especially in a liberal city like Toronto.

The feelings of the single mother or the "other" were what was ultimately deemed important. Not the desires of the majority of mothers. Not the welfare of the babies. Not the presence of the fathers or some 'traditional' notion of family.

On the bright side, I do take some solace in the fact that the majority of women did want fathers present.

Culturally, that does mean something. And as I have said all along in my writing here, culture is what matters most.

FIRST STEP TOWARDS ELIMINATING SEPARATE SCHOOL SYSTEM?

2008-02-13T10:26:00.000-08:00

Joanne awares us to the fact that McGuinty is eliminating the Lord's Prayer at Queen's Park.

Whether one agrees with this or not, what is interesting is that both the NDP and the Progressive Conservatives finds this curious. The NDP actually made a great statement about the hypocrisy of it .

Especially since there was no controversy or external demand for it.

I suspect this is his first step in eradicating funding for the Separate School system, which I have said all along will be in his plans. This is the sort of simple gesture that in the mind of a politician will prepare people.

Again, even if you agree with this move, the way in which it will most likely happen will be extremely deceitful to the many people who voted for McGuinty on good ...faith.

Especially odious since we have segregated schools for blacks, gays and aboriginals.

Again, I cannot prove it, but I suspect long after McGuinty is gone he will be seen in the same vein as Mike Harris. It might take a decade to get to that point, but he truly is a facile, simplistic individual.

WHAT DID THEY PAINT?

2008-02-13T09:36:00.000-08:00

This is the kind of story I find interesting for what it does not tell you?

Namely, what did the suspects do with the paint? If this were a mosque, it would probably be national news. If it were a synagogue, it would certainly get more play?

Perhaps this is nothing, but it is the kind of small story that makes me wonder, what was the paint used for?

DID YOU HEAR THE ONE ABOUT THE MONTREAL PROFESSOR AND THE NUTCRACKER

2008-02-13T08:02:00.000-08:00

This is a very funny story.

Poor Montreal Professor Robert Benjamin.

"His life was saved last Friday by a dominatrix at the Nutcracker Suite on East 33rd Street, who was assigned to check on him after her colleague left him with a dog collar around his neck and a leather mask over his face, suspended a few inches off the floor.

She realized his foot was turning blue because one of his high heels had slipped off. "

I normally wouldn't post something like this, but the fact that it was a Canadian university professor made it too hard to resist. I mean, this is the 'intellectual class'.

I am no saint...but man...these are the people that parents sink thousands upon thousands of dollars into to teach their kids.

I wonder what subject he taught?

Would gender studies be too obvious.

KATHLEEN WYNNE IS A LIAR; DALTON MCGUINTY IS A HYPOCRITE

2008-02-01T05:53:00.000-08:00

"Education Minister Kathleen Wynne added that the proposal to create Afrocentric schools is not at all comparable to faith-based schools because the goal is to improve the grades of black students.
“The issue of faith-based education has nothing to do with student achievement,” Ms. Wynne told reporters."

This argument could be made if the curriculum at the Afro-centric schools were the exact same as that in the public school system but only the context of how it was taught is different.

But it is not.

The curriculum will be Afro-centric. Period. They will not be learning about the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. They will not be learning about Louis Riel.

That means one system of education, one value system is taken in better faith than another. That's a faith based system.

Kathleen Wynne knows this. The system is clearly about segregation. That makes Wynne a liar.

But Wynne does not really care because then she would have to answer as to why there is a segregated gay school in Toronto. And the oh so enlightened Education Minister does not want to deal with that hypocrisy.

Dalton McGuinty can stop it, he is just terrified of being called a racist. That makes McGuinty a hypocrite.

But I suspect he will fund it in the end. He is just waiting for the furor to die down. He will give them funds and it will just not get reported in the MSM. And the majority of people will forget about it for a decade until it is a huge failure and they want to blame some conservative politician running for office.

The Ontario Public School System is in a dire mess and the Toronto Public School system is even worse.

But parents vote for it. So the parents get what they deserve. My heart bleeds for the children who don't.

HILLARY THE REAL DEAL: BARACK HAS NO CLOTHES

2008-01-31T19:48:00.000-08:00

Just finished watching the Democrat debate. I have written positively about Barack Obama here before, but to be honest, I think he lost against Hillary Clinton.

On issues such as immigration he seemed painfully naive. On Iraq he seemed to be very simplistic. On health care he seemed optimistic, but not realistic.

I do not think he is a bad man and still think he has a real shot at the White House. But the more I actually watch him for extended periods, the more I think the emperor has no clothes. Barack's base is not the working class, it is 'well educated', largely white university students and Hollywood. That is who he is hoping will get him California on Super Tuesday.

I am not convinced. If he were in Canada, he would be NDP. Again, I wanted to believe...but I cannot be so blind to the simplistic rhetoric.

Hillary Clinton was all substance. I know she is very divisive among conservatives and I disagree with her on many issues, but the woman is no fool. She made concrete policy statements and was very complex on Iraq.

I will be surprised if she does not win the White House.

FREE SPEECH AND ABORTION

2008-01-25T07:21:00.001-08:00

I taught last fall at a career college in the GTA. It was a mixed experience I'll write about later in ways you might not suspect.

But in mid December, during the staff 'Holiday' celebration, I observed a conversation taking place in one corner between a teacher and two students.

Okay, well it really wasn't a discussion. It was the leafy, hippie teacher prattling on to the two students about free speech in Canada. He waved his hands in the air and insisted Canada was a place where you could say anything you wanted at anytime unlike America where you could never critique your president.

He said if you wanted to in Canada, you could say anything you want about Harper who he insisted was one of the worst PM's we've ever had. He said you could say anything you want in Canada and there would be no consequences.

Then he changed his story saying that things had started to change in America because Bush was so evil people were taking more risks with their careers and lives and speaking out.

The neophyte teens smiled and nodded simplistically.

I walked away.

"Since the 1988 Supreme Court of Canada decision vindicating Morgentaler and decriminalizing all manner of abortion, a political chill descends whenever the subject is broached."

I MET AN OLD MAN

2008-01-24T08:08:00.000-08:00

I met an old man two and a half years ago on the corner of Young and Eglinton in Toronto who had on one of those "No Che" shirts. Y'know, the ones with the picture of Che in the middle of a circle and a slash.

He was taking a smoke break from visiting friends at a local watering hole. His face was weathered with the experience of life as he basked in the midday sun.

As I walked briskly past, I mentioned to him that I loved his shirt. He looked at me curiously for a second. He thought I was mocking him. I reassured him that I really did love his shirt. When he knew that I was sincere he opened up to me quickly. He had seen his family killed due to communism in Eastern Europe post WWII. He could not understand why he saw so many young Torontonians wearing shirts with Che Guevera's picture on it when Che was a symbol of an ideology that had killed millions including his family. He said that's why he came to Canada, to escape the sorts of horrors and genocide he had witnessed first hand.

I was blunt with him. I told him that my generation and younger were being taught in school that Marxism was good and desirable. That it was about equality. Not a Judeo-Christian definition of equality, but a Marxist definition of equality. We were not being taught of the horrors and atrocities of communism during the 20th century which are far greater than any religion or capitalism combined for 2000 years.

I even mentioned to him there was an upscale store on Yonge St. where communist paraphenelia and propaganda posters were sold to the elite chattering classes at a very high price.

He was dismayed. We talked a little more and I went on my way.

Now much of this goes back to Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who, far from being the 'citizen of the world' and 'complex individual' that he is portrayed as, was actually more of an emotional artist type at heart who had a hard time comprehending the philosophical contradictions inherent within Marxism. Hence, his increased role for state intervention in Canada, his lack of respect for family and the role of the church, his relativist moral world view and lack of acknowledgement of much of the horrors and genocide of the 20th century.

Personally, I do not think history will be kind to his legacy, but that will be for other generations to decide.

Quite frankly, I do not see how some people in the West, largely left-wing 'intellectuals' and media types could be so ignorant as to say this is cool.

How can you say there is no freedom of speech in America but like Hugo Chavez when he shuts down and intimidates TV stations and print media that disagree with him?

How can you oppose the war in Iraq and be ignorant to the violence and genocide inflicted upon people in Cambodia, Russia, China and North Korea n the 20th century?

How can you oppose torture in Guantanamo Bay and not acknowledge the same or worse in Cuba when it is even referenced by Amnesty International?

How can you say you are for the poor and then advocate an academic philosophy that is far more oppressive to the poor than any other philosophy in the history of mankind? Feudal society has a better track record towards the poor than Marxism does.

How can a group of people who fancy themselves so smart and intellectually astute, be so ignorant.

Whenever I see people with communist or Che shirts, I see them in the same vein as someone wearing a swastika or a neo-nazi slogan.

Sad, pathetic people ignorant to the pain and horror their ideology has caused. One group resides in trailer parks while the other resides in the upper echelons of the Academy.

I'm at a loss to guess which one is worse.

REST IN PEACE, HEATH

2008-01-22T14:27:00.000-08:00

Ledger was a genuinely talented young actor who was destined for great things. I do not say that lightly about most of young Hollywood. Sadly, another young artist who will no longer be with us.

I hope you are in a better place.

LIBERAL FRIENDS, LIBERAL ENEMIES

2008-01-18T13:52:00.000-08:00

No one can deny that we live in a culture of very divisive times. Whether one is a liberal, conservative, libertarian or of no political belief whatsoever, we all have friends of various political stripes.

What I wonder though, the older I get, is I start to understand what some of the old fashioned platitudes actually meant in a practical sense.

Don't talk about religion, sex or politics around the kitchen table used to be how the saying went. The baby boomers took that addage to be an indication of a culture that was repressed and for forty years went in the opposite direction where everything was talked about at the kitchen table from what your intestinal gas smells like to what your most intimate sex practice is.

For as long as I can remember, our culture has been one of acrimony that has gotten much much worse in recent years.

My question is, to those of you with strong beliefs, do you find it easy to be friends with people whose beliefs are polar opposite to your own?

I don't mean friendly or on nice speaking terms. I mean friends who share deep experiences with each other.

I find in recent years it has become much more difficult for me. I am in the arts; needless to say, most of my friends, aquaintences and business contacts are not just liberal...they are the most extreme of leftists.

Several of these people are card carrying wiccans and pagans who take The DaVinci Code literally and run out naked and howl at the moon during the solstice. One of those is about to get a PHD from U of T. She calls it enlightenment.

Others are true blue errr red believers in Marxism and all of the oppression that entails. Yet another is an academic at U of T who confided to me once that he felt oppressed by having to walk past a church everyday and that Churches, Mosques and Synagogues should be forced by the state to perform 'same sex' marriages. His wife is a high ranking member of the Liberal Party. I know she has influence and her views are to the left of him.

Sadly, my relationships with all of these people has dwindled off in recent years because I find that when your beliefs are that divergent, every conversation becomes an exercise in subtext, hints and views that almost always are argumentative or condescending in nature.

Gloriously and joyously, my wife and I recently found out we were having our first baby. This is the first for us and was a huge part of why I didn't write as much in the fall. But, here is a question...this is where things get dificult.

We seek to baptize our child Catholic. Can one invite the academic or the pagan to the baptism when you know they have communicated to you that they see the faith as a form of oppression and hate?

Take the flip side; if one really believes the war in Iraq is about nothing but oil and greed and oppression of other people, how can that person be good friends with someone who is for it?

Unless of course you conclude the opposing side is just ignorant, misinformed and stupid...which is of course just as problematic. I feel like I am at a bit of a turning point in my life as we prepare for our daughter to be born.

And that is my question. I truly believe one should seek out many diverse friends to have with differing views and beliefs. But realistically, in the arts, I do not have that many conservative, Christian or Catholic friends.

Many times, you feel like you are the "low man on the totem pole" (as the late, great Canadian John Candy once said in an SCTV skit), and even conversations that begin well can always take a detour into subtext.

For those that care, do you find you have the same experiences? Even though I have been on welfare in my life and my family comes from a humble background where we have been to a food bank to get peanut butter before Christmas when was a child, my Marxist friend, who has never been poor and lives a comfortable life, looks down on me...because I oppress the poor! He loves Chris McCandless though!

I think I need to tell him that being poor is not cool and does not come with an Eddie Vedder soundtrack.

My pagan aquaintance is so obsessed with with New Age feminism that when she complained about her weight to me at a Christmas Party and my response was that she looked great, had nothing to worry about and then I jokingly said that she had my "permission" to never worry about it again, she then snarkily inferred that I was playing the role of the dominant patriarch with her! Insanity.

So my question is, how much longer can our culture go on this way? Regardless of who is in power, it is silly for either side to claim they have a majority on their side.

There have always been cultural debates throughout the ages and they have always been the same...

religion vs science...

poor vs rich...

politician vs citizen...

governance vs control...

public vs private...

land owner vs worker...

They go on and on. Yet right now our culture feels increasingly angry and tense.

Like we no longer talk to each other anymore as individuals but as "types". So if someone knows which way you vote or what your belief system is they will make assumptions about you and talk to you in subtext.

Does this train of thought make sense to anyone...or is it just me?

PUBLISHER GOES TO JAIL IN BELARUS

2008-01-18T11:49:00.000-08:00

I am sure this will not happen to Ezra Levant.

But could it, on a long enough time line and if the 'right' cultural factors were lined up?

Are there people in Canada who would want it to happen?

Who are they...judges, lawyers, academics, people on 'human rights' tribunals?

Can someone also tell me how a "free press" can discuss a topic if you are not allowed to view or read the topic that is in discussion? If an artist wants to show "Piss Christ", or "Chocolate Jesus with an erection in pumpkin sauce", I want to see it so I can discuss it.

I have no problem with my local paper printng a picture of them. And they have no problem printing them with sophomoric glee.

If we are going to discuss the Halton School and The Golden Compass, I want to be able to go to my local bookstore and read a copy. Which of course, I can.

Why can we not do the same with these cartoons? How can we discuss something that we are not allowed to see in any legal sense?

The more arguments I read for not being able to print these cartoons, the more I find the emperor has no clothes.

Western, mainstream media is a disgrace.

NOW WE CAN'T EVEN SAY WHAT OUR LAWS ARE

2008-01-17T12:59:00.000-08:00

I am not at all surprised at this decision. Now we cannot even say what our laws are.

Madness.

The reason the left has to ban the opposing views, such as in this case, the case of Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn or the Pope at the university in Rome is because they have no more ideas or arguments.

Because they refuse to read history they cannot even say they stand on the shoulders of giants. Rather, they hope to censor the giants in the hopes that the rest of society will be as ignorant as they.

If they can find the money, I hope this goes to court.

DEAR GOD, JUST. GO. AWAY.

2008-01-17T07:33:00.000-08:00

Because some of us want to win the next election.

OBAMA THE NEW REAGAN?

2008-01-16T19:40:00.000-08:00

I have a strange feeling about Barack Obama. Not just that he has a real shot at being president, but that he also would not be as hard left as many think.

I know, I know, his voting record (when he doesn't just say "present") is pretty hard left and his base is the corporate and academic elites I always rail against.

Yet, I think he has bigger designs.

This video where he mentions Ronald Reagan also makes me think Obama genuinely wants to be an American president for all and not just run on the fumes of the tired, soggy old 60's baby boomers. I am not saying he can do that...just that he seems to want to.

He has a huge hill to climb as the Clintons will not give up without a huge fight and many African American leaders have yet to endorse him.

Nevertheless, he has made this race one of the most interesting ones in a long time.

As for the Republicans, I think they might be like the Liberals in Canada. They need to take time to figure out what they stand for and what the believe. Personally, the current crop of GOP candidates excite me about as much as the crop of candidates that ran for the last Liberal leadership.

Yes, I just wrote that.

EZRA, THE FACE OF THE NEW COUNTER CULTURE

2008-01-16T12:03:00.000-08:00

In my opinion, I think what probably bothers aging, far left-liberal boomers like Kinsella most is this...they are no longer that which they defined themselves as...anti-establishment rebels.

NOFX, sheesh, Avril Lavigne and Rihanna have more bite. These guys have been around since I was a child.

What we are seeing now in the left, is the final vitriol of the generation of baby-boomers who have seized power and now control all of the establishments they once rebelled against. Arrogantly thinking they were the solution to history, now they lash out in anti-intellectual, vitriol and rage against that which they do not understand.

For all of their rhetoric of how progressive and forward thinking they were, most of their ideas have been abject failures.

Far from giving us a utopia of free love, peace and equality...

...the counter culture baby boomers gave us the pain of broken families, HIV/AIDS, the horrors of ignoring the genocide of Marxism, the censorship of political correctness, a public educational system rife with violence and lots of really bad hair and art.

I have never met the man, but what possibly bothers Kinsella the most in the Ezra Levant case, on some subconcious generational level, are not the politics of free speech...not whether peoples feellings are hurt or not...not the issues of freedom of religion or the press, but the fact that Ezra Levant is the new young rebel bucking the system. Even alt-rocker Matthew Good had to acknoweldge that in an offhanded way.

Ezra Levant is the new face of the counter-culture in Canada. And the face is not that of a 60's obsessed, bratty rich white student, covered in piercings and tatoos wearing tattered, acid washed clothes with a picture of Che and an upside down cross on his shirt.

No, the counter-culture face is now that of a clean cut, bespectaled, suit wearing, young Jewish man standing up defiantly for what he knows is right.

Even if Barack Obama wins the presidency, it will not mean what Boomers want it to mean. It will not mean a return to the 60's. Obama will still have to deal with Christians, Catholics and the moral conservatives who see what is wrong with the culture. The internet is the new technology that they latched onto and they will now be heard. Remember that there is a huge contingent of Republicans who will vote for Obama.

No amount of childish, hand wringing and name calling from aging, balding, boomer rebel wannabees will ever change that.

The reaction to Ezra's brilliant You Tube videos show that his voice will now be heard in Canada too. Ezra is now a real person who has real views. He and his supporters cannot just be labelled and dismissed with childish names and rhetoric. That is the path that a true bigot takes. Bigots reduce people to the most inhuman, garrish stereotypes in their own mind as a way of not having to deal with them as human beings. To deal with them as human beings means accepting new ideas. It means that the old ideas and assumptions were flawed and didn't work.

I could be wrong, but that dawning reality is what I suspect bothers boomers like Kinsella the most.

GOD BLESS YOU, EZRA

2008-01-13T13:37:00.000-08:00

Obviously there is probably not much I can add to this story other than giving my support and linking to the man's website.

Ezra Levant's statements here are wonderful. That the government worker can't even back up her views is pathetic. I have said it before, the only people who ever beat Human Rights tribunals are the ones who take them on full steam. That does not mean Ezra will 'win'...but at least he increased his chances.

What he is undergoing here is nothing short of a Star Chamber circa 2008.

But most Canadians just worry about the Coca Cola polar bear book in Halton.

MONEY WILL NOT MAKE OUR SCHOOLS SAFE

2008-01-11T06:28:00.000-08:00

At least they are acknowledging that there is a problem. But of course, the response is always the same...more resources, more money...

Money will not stop kids from bringing knives to school.

Money will not stop sexual assaults against girls in the school halls.

Money will not make kids more respectful of their peers, teachers and each other.

One of the reasons (among many) that I trailed off in writing this blog of recent months is that I got tired of writing the same thing over and over again. It's the culture! Even a conservative politician can't change these things until the culture shifts and we are allowed to talk about what really ails us.

You can't have a progressive 60's style school system that says to students that there is no right or wrong and expect them to make the right decisions. You can't keep telling teenage gang members that they are oppressed and that the cause of their anger is really the system they are hopeless to change and expect them to not lash out. You can't encourage a a culture where female students are taught that feminist empowerment comes from being promiscuous and then expect boys to respect girls who choose not to be so.

Until the McEducation Premiere and his morally relative education Mc Minister realize this, than nothing will change and our children and their families will suffer for generations to come.

That's a helluva price to pay for the moral relavance of the washed up, burnt out, selfish social engineers of the baby boomer generation.

They promised us they would burn out but instead are taking a really long fade away. Rock on, indeed!

DHALLAGATE '08

2008-01-10T09:56:00.000-08:00

I found this interesting. I suspect what is at issue here is whether or not Dhalla is the type of MP that actually cares whether or not the children were beaten.

I do not know Dhalla, but I lived in Brampton for almost a decade and have seen her on television numerous times and if I had to guess at who the most vapid, shallow careerist MP was right now...Dhalla would certainly be in the running.

If you look at her public conduct and voting record she appears to be an MP with very little principle and seems to have as her only goal the getting ahead at all costs.

I remember her being on Michael Coren several years ago and throwing all kinds of of outrageous 'facts' about conservative misdeeds out into the fray. As I recall, the well researched Coren said he hadn't heard of them and said he would have his researcher verify what she said for the next show. If memory serves, he asked if she would be available for comment on the next show when he found more things out. The next night he revealed everything she said was inaccurate and of course, she was not available for comment.

I remember she was also the Lib MP they sent to the conservative policy convention a few years ago. She gave an interview saying how terrified she was at the extreme Christians in there. She probably even breathed heavy for paranoid effect.

She also misled the Sikh community in Brampton which is overwhelming morally conservative and opposed to 'same sex' marriage. As I recall, she would not comment on her views until after the election after which she voted for it.

So when the Toronto Star reports:

An online broadcast by Times Now television described Dhalla’s first response to the incident as “shockingly callous.”

In that initial interview, Dhalla was quoted as saying she “cannot control what the police do ... and I hope that those young kids learn from this incident.”

...my inclination is that is probably true.

Again, I only know Dhalla from her own public actions and conduct and my guess is that this is totally in line with her persona of a cold, calculated careerist who has very little compassion for anyone who stands in her way.

She is most likely only seemingly concerned now for PR reasons.

I suspect her line tommorow will be to play the race card saying anyone who thinks the children were beaten is a racist with a patriarchal Western view towards impovershed nations. She is probably being councilled on that as we speak. But that is only my opinion as is everything here based on my observations of her public persona and memory.

'Cause that's the kind o' gal she seems to be to me. Does that make me sexist?

JACK BAUER AT THE CBC!

2008-01-07T05:02:00.000-08:00

Not bloody likely...

But tonight, they do premiere the latest craptacular CBC waste of your tax payer dollars entitled The Border! (exclamation mark added for liberal excited effect)

From IMDB;

"This TV series is a fast-paced, hard-driving series set in Toronto in a paranoid post 9/11 world concerned with one topic - The Border, with its security crises, terrorist infiltrations, cross-border police actions, and trafficking in everything from enriched uranium to abducted children."

My first reaction was that the terrorist threats will be most likely be an evil evangelical crossing the border to bomb a Canadian abortion clinic or an evil right-wing capitalist who wants to poison the Evian supply just in time for Pride. And guess what episode 7 just happens to be called; Family Values.

More Canadian junk on your dime. Take a look at the bio's if you want a good laugh. Yes, all the "types" are there...

...the evil right wing CSIS head who is a puppy to America;

the dumb but stern Cuban American who must be corrected for her right wing views;

the dumb as nails, jock cowboy who is an ass to women;

the enlightened Muslim officer in a bigotted white man's world;

the enlightened black officer who is now an urban sophisticate from a happy small town (hey, I thought small towns in Canada didn't allow minorities to live happily!);

the fat, slobby racist conservative cop who loves his beer, hockey and sloppy dogs;

...oh and just for kicks they - do - have a Christian character....

it seems one of the female department heads has a daughter who now lives in a trailer park in Niagara Falls with her "born again" biker boyfriend!

I'll guess this mom character is the token lesbian and the trailer trash daughter will be a - huge - disappointment.

Look for Gemini nods all around.

MERRY X-MAS FROM THE CBC! FOOLS!

2007-12-01T08:37:00.000-08:00

...because Jesus didn't even exist!

Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ has been around for a while and it looks like our good and dear friends at Mother Corp have produced a documentary just in time for the Holliday season to warm our hearts.

As lifesite correctly tells us;

"The idea was popularized by radical feminist and lesbian writers like the self-styled "witch" Miriam Simos, who goes by the nom de plume of "Starhawk", and is one of the foremost voices of ecofeminism. These writers were instrumental in founding a "goddess" worshipping neo-paganism in the 1970's and '80's that was zealously anti-Christian and particularly hostile to Catholicism and has grown in popularity in Canada and the US."

I know this is true because sadly, I have several friends who are into this culture/belief system and I even went to one of their 'communes' in the Niagara wine region a little over a year ago.

What I find amusing though is the way the CBC sells it on their website.

"And, according to Harpur, this was their fatal error – and the very reason Christianity is struggling today.
The mission of The Pagan Christ is not to accelerate Christianity’s slow demise, but to breath new life into its holy book and, in the process, bring the world a richer, more spiritual faith."

Christianity is only faltering in the West, where secular materialism has taken over for three generations now. Elsewhere, in places such as the third world or Africa, it is thriving.

Similarly, I love how they try to sell an anti-Christian documentary to Christians.

If Jesus didn't exist, how can a faith based on his existence as the son of God thrive?

The most basic requirement for being a Christian is a belief that Jesus was the son of God...not that you are just "nice".

Quite frankly, if Jesus and God do not exist, then why would you follow them? If this documentary is true, then please give this office formal notification...I have some small nations I'd like to pillage and plunder before dawn.

GOLDEN COMPASS SHOLD BE ALLOWED BUT THE HYPOCRISY IS NOXIOUS

2007-11-26T08:22:00.000-08:00

I know I am a little late to this debate as work has continued to be hectic this fall, but I thought I would offer some brief thoughts.

First off, the Halton Catholic School Board should allow the students to read the Golden Compass. Period. As a libertarian for free speech, that is the only position I can have.

But I need to make a few points.

1. They did not ban it as has been widely reported. They took it off of the recommeded reading list. Children can still read it, they only need to ask the librarian.

2. The book is not being questioned because it was written by an atheist. I'd be willing to bet half the teachers in the Catholic system are nominally atheist. The book is being questioned because taken as a trilogy, it is not only about the literal killing of God, but the villain itself is the Roman Catholic Church.

3. No, the words "Roman Catholic Church" are not used, but the villain is the Magisterium. And the Magisterium is the teaching arm of the Roman Catholic Church. Put another way, lets say the villain was called an Imam but the word "Muslim" was never used. Or what if the villainous organization was called F.A.G. but the word "gay" was never used. All right, that already happened in Team America.

4. Do you think public schools don't ban books or take them off of the required reading list? Try finding a copy of Gone With the Wind, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, American Psycho or Uncle Tom's Cabin in a Toronto Public School? The difference is when this happens, it is a part of accepted left wing, politically correct orthodoxy.

5. The hypocrisy of this issue is noxious.

NDP MP: SELLING YOUNG GIRLS PART DEUX

2007-11-12T13:38:00.000-08:00

In the comments section, someone re-iterated to me that this would be a co-op. That got me thinking...

Many hookers discriminate based on issues such as race and age (ie. they will only see clients of a certain ethnicity or age); will this still be allowed?

Similarly, even within the realm of the sex trade, hookers who perform certain acts (pertaining to specific and messy scatalogical bodily functions) are looked down upon; would all hookers be required to perform these acts in the name of equality?

What about quality control? Vintners in Ontario have the VQA; meat packing companies and the health industry have quality control units; will we have to pay a group of people to use prostitutes to make sure all of the techniques used are up to snuff.

What if some are not up on the basics? Will we issue them a training manual with diagrams?

Some hookers go way above and beyond the call for duty with regards to outfits such as police officer, PVC Nun, dominatrix etc. You get the idea. Will the government allow a budget to all prostitutes in the name of equality?

Will they be allowed in public schools on career day? Yeah, I think we know the answer to that one.

What if a prostitute only wants to service opposite sex clients? Will they be required to perform for same-sex clients as well? I mean, if it is government regulated, we can't discriminate.

What if a straight 'john' books a female hooker who it turns out is not available but a transgendered prostitute is; if the john refuses, can they be taken to a human rights tribunal?

What if a gay hooker is used to being a top; will he have to learn to be a bottom, even if it causes medical problems?

We are not allowed to discriminate in employment for people who have HIV/AIDS; would the same go here? What if they use protection? Will that be good enough? If you think that is over the top, remember the brouhaha over the Red Cross blood donation policies.

What of discrimination based on looks; something tells me that in their quest for equality, government run brothels would have a very low standard of looks for the hookers. You would probably go in looking for someone like Angelina Jolie in thigh high boots and garters and have to be content with someone who looked like...well, Libby Davies in really comfortable shoes and sweat socks.

The more I think about this...this is an idea so stupid; so magnificently and profoundly sub-moronic, it could only come to pass. Canada would not have it any other way.

NDP MP: FREE MARKET SELLING OF YOUNG GIRLS O.K.

2007-11-12T10:12:00.000-08:00

I am not surprised Libby Davies is behind this idea and I am only glad Stephen Harper is PM right now and will not pay attention to her. I am however saddened, but not surprised that some, quite frankly ignorant, Blogging Tories are getting on the frat boy 'yeehaaa' bandwagon on this one.

Legalizing brothels is not an idea that comes free of negative repercussions. As I asked on another blog:

What message do we send to young girls (or boys)? That selling their body is a legitimate profession?

Do you want your government to earn money off of the backs of young, broken girls?

What age should a girl be before she would be allowed to sell her body in a brothel? To this question, one hapless blogger said it should be whatever the age of consent is.

Yes, we should want to live in a society where a 14 year old child is allowed to sell her pubescent body to a businessman cheating on his wife on weekends for burger money. (all sarcasm) My God. Have people gone insane?

The blogger, who should be embarrased, was a Blogging Tory. I used to think only Rabble had the true wing-nuts.

I have spoken to many prostitutes and strippers in my life. Many of them are broken women who do not choose to sell their bodies. They are damaged people who made those choices out of desperation. Selling one's body is not the same as selling a cookie. Buying someone's body is not the same as buying a coffee at Starbucks.

I also find it funny how the NDP will balk at legitimizing business that could help the poor with cheaper products (ie. Walmart) but the moment a group of hookers want to form a business for the selling of young female bodies, they have no problem. My, what wonderful free-market capitalists these silver spoon socialists turn out to be.

If any of you think this is a good idea, I suggest you leave the confines of your office where you are earning 5 figures. Put down the two weeks too early Holiday Frappe from Tim's and take a walk to one of the seedier parts of town. Try to strike up a conversation with some prostitutes. Look at how old they look for people so young. Try to see how legalizing what they do will not make them feel any better.

If you can't see that, then maybe all of the criticism about the shallowness of the free market is right.

LIBERAL ARTISTS SICK OF LIBERAL ART

2007-11-12T06:36:00.000-08:00

One of the things that I believe - scratch that - know, is that too many conservatives do not care about the ideology of the art or entertainment that they consume and purchase. They figure "as long as I am entertained, who cares?"

That's why they proudly put millions into The DaVinci Code, The Bourne Ultimatum and the latest Bruce Springsteen CD.

Now obviously, there is nothing inherently wrong with that and you should choose to like a piece of art/product based on reasons far more complex than just ideology. But you should also be aware of how that ideology affects the world around you.

Here are two articles from the British newspaper The Guardian, both by people who are, to some degree, fed up with left wing dominance in the arts. What is fascinating is that the writers themselves are left-wing.

First up, Mark Ravenhill, a gay playwright who is tired of writing gay.

"Now, I'm surprised to say, I'm happy never to write another gay character again. It feels as though every aspect of the gay experience has been narrated, performed and picked over in the past 30 years. It has left us with some brilliant work. Alongside all the bad generic gay work, artists such as Derek Jarman, Alan Hollinghurst, Tony Kushner and others have left a body of work that is both gay and great. But that work seems over now."

Next up is an article asking where the right-wing voices are in the British theatre?

Where are the right-wing voices who will take the establishment on? For decades, British theatre has been dominated by playwrights sympathetic to a liberal consensus. The culture of the left has been represented by strident plays and angry playwrights - but where are the voices of the right, and why can't the stage accommodate both?

What is of note, is that these articles are being written by people on the left for a left-wing newspaper. Britain is far more leftist than Canada at this point in its history. Yet, it seems that even some left-wing artists in Britian are fed up. Ewan McGregor recently decried Britian's nanny state and Tom Stoppard, a conservative, is fed up with the left.

In America, left-wing films like Lions for Lambs, Rendition and In the Valley of Elah, all flopped and more newspapers are commenting on that. I do sense a small change coming. That is natural. Sadly, English Canada will be the last to reflect this.

DAVID MILLER'S PRODIGAL SON ECONOMICS

2007-10-24T07:09:00.000-07:00

This is David Miller's quote with regards to his property tax hike in Toronto.

"That is fair and what I committed to do my best to do," he said one day after council approved a new land transfer tax and car registration fee that are expected to raise a total of $175-million next year.

"People have been really clear. They want their services maintained and they want investment in new services."

The problem is this, David Miller is not an economist. He has no real experience in running a major city's economy. As a silver spoon Harvard grad, his knowledge of economy is theoretical at best. As a former member of the NDP with a Marxist/socialist outlook, his policies are not only unrealistic but create damage in the long run.

Let's keep it simple. Let's say a son is dependant on his dad to give him money every month as an allowance. Let's say his costs are 3000 dollars for things such as rent and food. Let's say the dad gives the son the money.

Then let's say instead of spending the money on rent and food the son spends it on unessentials such as video games and movies and comics and parties.

He still still needs to buy the rent and food for his existance. Those are essentials. He then comes back to the father for more money. He is angry but still loves the son and says he can give him some more, but not as much this time; maybe only 1500 dollars. The son then takes that money and puts a little towards the essentials, but the majority still towards the fluff.

The son then comes back to the father a third time. By now he is tapped out and very upset. He does not have enough money to give to the son or keep for himself and they are now both in dire straits due to the son's negligence.

That is where the city of Toronto is now. David Miller is the son. The average Torontonian is the father. The money is tax. The essentials are transit, police, sanitation etc. The frivolities are city council salary increases to the tune of 20,000, arts that nobody cares for (remember the lactating lesbian exhibit?), caving into wealthy union demands.

David Miller was not elected by people who understand the economics of a large urban center. He was elected by emotional artists, environmentalists and fat cat union leaders. None of which knows or cares about how to run a large urban city like Toronto.

It is not a coincidence that is was artists and labour heads who cheered him on yesterday. It was not a coincidence that it was economists and the average working class Torontonian who did not.

Sadly, most Torontonians do not understand economics like this and vote in socialist politicians based on emotional rhetoric, not based on ration, logic and reason.

I can see Toronto in a huge downturn for the next stretch. That does not make me happy. Businesses will leave, the poor will pay a heavier tax burden then they deserve and the price will be heavy.

The saddest part of it all is this though; Torontonians, forever stuck in the 60's, only have themselves to blame. Because at least at the end of the day, the prodigal son acknowledged his wrong doing and apologized. An apology is something that will never come from David Miller's mouth.

ONTARIO PC'S : FIND YOUR STEPHEN HARPER!

2007-10-23T06:42:00.000-07:00

I agree with this.

"John Tory should step down as Progressive Conservative leader and either seek the leadership again or ride off into the sunset, says a former provincial cabinet minister.

John Snobelen, a minister in former premier Mike Harris's government, said in the wake of the Oct. 10 election debacle the party's grassroots must determine whether Tory can lead them into the 2011 vote."

John Tory is a good man, but he is not right for the leadership of the provincial Progressive Conservative Party. Tory has a hard time connecting to voters. Personally, I think the main issue is most people do not really know where they stand with him. The left mistakenly think he is too far right and the right see him as too left. I would much rather see him run again as mayor other than stay on as leader of the Ontario PC's.

It cannot be taken lightly that he did not win his seat back against Kathleen Wynne. I predicted that he would not, before the campaign officially started. That he chose to run against her in a far left Toronto riding showed an error in judgement that cannot be taken as a casual mistep. It was a gross mistake.

Similarly, when the Toronto Star says you should stay on...you know it is time to fall on your proverbial sword and leave for the betterment of the party. The Star wanted Tory to stay because they know he has no chance at winning.

I understand wanting to stand by your leader, but John Tory did not stand by the base of his party and now we pay with a few more years of the McPolitician.

What the Ontario Progressive Conservatives need to do is find a young Stephen Harper or Mike Harris (yes, I said that!) that will run as a conservative. One that is honest and charismatic. Too many PC leaders think that if they only go more left, the left will like them and they will win. Understand this; the left will never love a conservative leader and will always fearmonger about them.

The Ontario Progressive Conservatives need to take a page from Stephen Harper's handbook and find a young conservative ideologue who is smart, bright and not intimidated by the white, secular latte set and even holds them in contempt. If you don't fear something, it can't hurt you. And people will see that. Even go so far as to find someone who is a bit of a social conservative. Yes, I said that too! Remember, Tory lost not because he was "churchy" (he is not), but because the "churchy types" didn't show up to vote for him.

Don't believe me? Who is your Prime Minister after a decade of Liberal rule?

I was right that Tory would lose his seat and I am right on this. Ontario PC's take my advice. Do not go further left...go further right. I am not saying you will win; there are too many factors that go into an election for me to say that. But at least you will have a fighting chance.

CALL YOUR BOSS A SONOFAB...!

2007-10-17T13:01:00.000-07:00

As I struggle to understand Stephane Dion on CFRB and try to hold back laughter as I hear him spin and spin until he capitualtes like a damp rag to the floor in a steambath, I came across this;

"Regular swearing at work can help boost team spirit among staff, allowing them to express better their feelings as well as develop social relationships, according to a study by researchers."
...
"We hope that this study will serve not only to acknowledge the part that swearing plays in our work and our lives, but also to indicate that leaders sometimes need to 'think differently' and be open to intriguing ideas."

I am not a prude. I swear. I am not perfect, nor do I think every form of swearing is unacceptable.

However, I will take a radical guess and suspect that many of the researchers that did this study are left-wing. They seem to want to affirm 'anti-social' values while confining to the dust bin of history 'social' or 'traditional' values.

Let me ask this; how long do think it would take for these same proponents to cry out harrassment and hate if certain swear words or invectives were used?

Think of all of the swear words you can say? Think really hard. How many could be construed as sexist, racist, homophobic or hateful? Do you think they would be tolerated by the same people who are endorsing this study?

Yeah, I know. Another dumb study by another dumb research group with nothing to add to a culture that is dumbed down enough as it is.

ELECTION POST MORTEM: DON'T ABANDON YOUR BASE

2007-10-10T20:41:00.000-07:00

"The hustings are over, the bunting is down, the mad hysteria is at an end. After the chaos of a general election, we can return to normal."

Edmund Blackadder III

But if I may, perhaps the next leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario will learn not to abandon his/her base. Red Toryism will not win you an election. It will only piss off your base and make them not turn out to vote for you.

...and how many more times do we have to learn the lesson that leftists in urban centers will not vote for anything with a conservative label on it?

At least when Stephen Harper lost in 2004, we could hold our head high. He is/was a man of principle and went out on his own terms. He took anti-establishment positions on everything from SSM to Afghanistan to taxes. And now he is our Prime Minister and will be for the near future.

Right now, do you think John Tory is happy or sad that he danced in gay pride?

Right now, do you think John Tory is happy or sad he spent all those hours hob-knobbing with the Ottawa-Toronto latte media cliques and throwing them BBQ's?

Right now, do think John Tory is happy or sad he tried to give more money to urban arts?

And if he really believed in all of those things, then he was with the wrong party.

My PC candidate lost today. I am not surprised. Toronto went red. I am not surprised. But it is easier to lose when you voted for something as opposed to against. I voted against Dalton McGuinty.

I won't lie to you. As I walked into my polling station I came within a hair of voting Libertarian due to their policy of abolishing the pubic school system. That would have been me voting for something.

But I voted PC because my candidate had a not so so-so chance.

The only bright spot is that rumour of Dalton McG being the seen as a potential new Liberal leader of Canada. I would love to see Stephen Harper make mince meat of that intellectual paper-weight. And the fact that they even mention Ruby Dhalla! I have seen her a few times on Michael Coren and the words vapid and flake came to mind.

If that's what the Liberal Party of the Future holds...let's get in our Doc Brown Delorean right now!

But for now, let's just hope a real conservative with back bone is willing to take back the province.

STRATEGIC VOTING?

2007-10-09T08:13:00.000-07:00

For personal reasons, I have not been able to post as much about this election as I would have liked.

Nevertheless, I will add my voice to the number that are now saying we need to deny Dalton McGuinty another majority.

Thankfully, I live in a riding which, while most likely going Liberal, has the Progressive Conservatives as the next bet.

I rarely say this, but if you are in a riding where the NDP could seriously overtake a Liberal candidate, it might be worth strategically voting to try to do anything we can at this late date to deny McGuinty a second majority.

It is a shame that Ontarians are so uneducated, that they would allow this to happen.

I am also sorry that so many conservatives have allowed themselves to have their fear button hit and not even be aware how they are being played.

"CATHOLICS, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED" - DO NOT VOTE LIBERAL

2007-10-08T09:01:00.000-07:00

"Catholics, you have been warned."

These are Angelo Persichilli's ominous words for those Catholics who will vote for Dalton McGuinty in two days.

As he writes,

"A BATTLE IS COMING

The Charter of Rights and Freedom, rightly or wrongly, has successfully been used to challenge the Canadian constitution and the BNA Act Some could even argue that the Charter has made the BNA act and the Constitution irrelevant. I'm betting another battle will happen again in Ontario pretty soon, and McGuinty will have to choose between funding everybody or nobody. I think I know what he will decide.

Catholics, consider yourselves warned. "

These are wise words, but sadly, ones that will not be heeded as Dalton heads to a second majority.

And lets be very clear;

Dalton McGuinty is perhaps the most dishonest, power hungry Ontario polititican I have known in my life-time. I disagreed with much of what Bob Rae stood for...but you knew what he stood for.

Dalton McGuinty has no principles, no scruples and no honour. He only cares about appealling to his ideologically motivated cohorts and could not care less about the children, families or elderly of this province.

His re-election will be a shame.

And those who vote for him will only have yourselves to blame. Those spinmasters who run his campaign knew what buttons of hate and intolerance to press and you allowed those buttons to be pressed.

I say that even to conservatives who will bail on John Tory over a non-issue.

You have no one to blame but yourselves.

Happy Thanksgiving.

LIBERTARIAN PARTY CALLS FOR ABOLITION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM

2007-10-04T16:42:00.000-07:00

This is something I could vote for if I thought they had a chance in hell. Best political idea I have read in years; and it's right from the website.

"Public education has been provided by governments in Ontario for more than 130 years. A long history of government involvement makes it difficult for most to envision an Ontario in which there is no government role whatsoever in providing this important service. Nonetheless, the policy of the Ontario Libertarian Party is to create conditions in which quality education can develop by completely ending all government participation and allowing education to be a matter of individual choice."

This will never happen in my lifetime, but it comforts me to think that there are people out there who have the same 'nasty' thoughts.

POLICE ACTIVITY AT UCC LAST NIGHT?

2007-09-26T12:29:00.000-07:00

Yesterday my wife's grandmother fell very ill and was taken to a local Toronto hospital.

My wife came back home between 8:30 pm and 9:00 pm. On her way home she said she drove past UCC (Upper Canada College) in Toronto and saw a flurry of police squad cars and officers.

She said the number of police cars were in the high teens.

Last night we looked for a news report indicating what the problem might be and found nothing.

This morning my aunt, who lives near UCC, said she saw on CP 24 that a car filled with guns was found on the UCC grounds.

I can find absolutely no information to verify this and a look at the CP 24 website has been fruitless.

I have tried searching the internet under various Toronto based websites and have found no indication of any activity whatsoever.

I believe that my wife and aunt saw a plethora of squad cars on the campus.

I have no way of verifying the newscast my aunt said she saw.

Does anyone know anything about this and if and why there were so many police squad cars on the UCC campus last night?

I WANNA BE A PROGRESSIVE!

2007-09-12T10:53:00.000-07:00

I know many people are talking today about the census report concerning the changing definitions of institutions. How the term family and marriage should be elastic so as to be inclusive for everyone.

Well, I tell you what, I am tired of fighting a battle no one wants to fight, so I'll pick a new one.

I want to be called a progressive!

Progressives are considered nice, happy shiny people who love everybody and want to save the planet. Not calling everyone a progressive is divisive. It implies that if you do not have progressive views you are evil, one dimensional and want to hurt the planet. I think that fosters hate between people.

I know I know;

I question man made global warming. I have a traditional marriage. I do not believe animals have equal rights to humans. I think Sarah Silverman is lame. I no longer listen to Pearl Jam and roll my eyes everytime I pass an organics store. I think Lulu Lemon is obnoxious, Michel Foucault was full of crap and Che is a communist butcher. I also get physically nauseous at the sight of Sean Penn and his cigarette stained face. I love to look at the aesthetics of women and never think of men in the same way.

But I wanna be a progressive because I like how they are treated.

And if you disagree with me you are a fascist, warthog, neanderthal pig with stale porridge coming out of your ears.

There, now I am a progressive.

BURIED WHITE STRIPES COKE COMMERCIAL

2007-09-11T13:25:00.000-07:00

Here is an obscure Coke commercial that the White Stripes recorded an original song for about a year ago.

It was rarely played and the fans were upset at Jack White for 'selling out' but I actually think it is one of the more creative and beautiful ads I have seen of late.

The song has a very pretty Beatles-esque sound and the visuals, while using CGI, have a great organic hook at the end.

Sorry this thing got buried. I would love to have this song as a single.

JOHN TORY GETS ANOTHER VOTE

2007-09-10T10:28:00.000-07:00

Mine, that is. I am pleasantly encouraged by this new Ipsos Poll in the National Post.

"The Liberal lead over the Progressive Conservatives has dipped to five points even as a majority of voters oppose John Tory's plan for faith-based funding, according to a new Ipsos Reid poll released as the Ontario election campaign officially begins today."

For the longest time I could not get behind John Tory. I debated if I would even vote in this election at all. I think many conservatives felt the same way.

Yet, when the Ontario Liberals decided to run another election based on demonizing people of religious beliefs, I realized I could not sit this one out. This new poll tells me a lot of people are starting to feel the same way.

Nobody can call me a Tory partisan. Even Warren Kinsella (thanks for the link in August) ran one of my blog posts criticizing Tory.

I stand by what I wrote and Tory is not perfect, but the McGuinty crew have pushed the education/religion issue a little bit too much. Even if you are opposed to faith based funding, most peope know there is something really wrong with our public educational system.

Today, Moira Macdonald has a critical look at McGuinty's real track record. Here, Michael Coren also has a wonderfully acerbic column about our public school system.

The Liberals are becoming vitriolic on this issue as a way to obscure the reality and truly divide us. I sense that is why the 905 region is starting to go for Tory. I also think that if last week didn't turf John Tory, then maybe he has a better chance than even I thought. Just like Harper dealt with the Same Sex Marriage issue at the beginning of his campaign, so is Tory dealing with the education issue.

And remember, Dalton McGuinty is horrible thinking on his feet in debates and John Tory is no Ernie Eves. That was as much a factor last election as any Mike Harris legacy, no matter what the media tells you.

I actually think things just got very interesting and the Liberals will - not - get the majority even I thought they would a few weeks ago.

Things will get very interesting after the first debate.

MCGUINTY AD POSES AS OP-ED: PUBLISH OR PERISH, INDEED

2007-09-10T07:20:00.000-07:00

When is a blatant, one sided political advertisement worthy of publishing as an editorial?

Here is a political ad by Dalton McGuinty to be the 'education premier' being published as an 'op-ed'.

Just more of the same blatant, hamfisted sloganeering that we have become used to from any politician running for election. He bashes the conservatives, uses rhetoric and makes a lot of generalizations that are so generic that they can not be proven true or false.

And all of that would be fine if it were a paid political ad. But it is not. It is being run as an editorial. Now, I know that John Tory will get his chance too and any paper would print these, but it just seems a bit off.

Why should any newspaper be printng an ad for any politician seeking re-election and publishing it as an editorial?

Is this free speech or does it actually hamper it?

It certainly devalues the newspaper that publishes it and I am not just saying this because it was written by Dalton McGuinty.

And does anyone actually think McGuinty wrote this? Or does it make more sense that one of his paid lackeys did and he gave it final approval? I have never thought McGuinty to be the brightest politico out there, but this is pretty trite.

It reads completely like a generic, re-used campaign slogan. All bland statements that ultimately mean nothing. I won't even compromise the integrity of my blog by re-printing a portion of it.

But I ask, when something this facile, this shoddy and poorly written can be published as 'editorial' by a major newspaper, what is the state of our media?

GENESIS TURN IT ON AGAIN!

2007-09-09T11:04:00.000-07:00

I had the pleasure to attend the Genesis reunion concert at BMO Field in Toronto on Friday night.

Genesis has always been one of my favourite bands and I will even cop to liking the Phil Collins era better than the Peter Gabriel material. Collins knew how to take Gabriel's theatrical nature but make it mainstream and attract a larger audience. That audience was out at full force at BMO Field.

The stage design was by Mark Fisher Studios. You can see some samples of his work here. Chances are if you have seen some large shows in the past 15 years you have seen his work. He has designed concerts for U2 (Pop Mart, Zoo TV), The Rolling Stones (A Bigger Bang) and Pink Floyd (Division Bell) among many others. In other words, his shows are BIG.

Genesis was no exception. With a sprawling design that reminded me very much of Pop Mart, they utilized large video displays, arches, circular video monitors, fireworks and an overall motif that looked like a steel version of The Fortress of Solitude. Great stuff!

But none of that matters if the performers don't show up to play. And Genesis played indeed.

People forget what a fantastic consumate showman Phil Collins is. He is a true performer and ranged from comedic (I Can't Dance), dark (Home By The Sea, Mama), poignant (I Know What I Like, Ripples) and romantic (The Carpet Crawlers). He is also one of the rare performers that can go on for a long time talking to the audience and still be very entertaining.

His voice is in wonderful shape and all of the band members from Mike Rutherford and Tony Banks, to the touring band of Chester Thompson and Daryl Steurmer were in wonderful form.

The only time I held my breath, was when Land of Confusion began and I saw the fire coming on the video screens with the old Spitting Images heads. For a second I feared the worst. That my old and dear favourite musical friends from my teen years would use the opportunity to preach to me about war and Imperialism and George Bush and Iraq and...Well, not at all. They were there to entertain and not a political note was hit all night. Instead, they favoured true artistic forms like metaphor and the obscure imagery that was always their trademark.

This was one of the best rock shows I have ever seen and I can say, I have seen a lot. It was easily more dramatic than The Police reunion a month ago.

Only flaw was the venue. The acoustics at BMO Field were great but getting there was a nightmare. Coming from Avenue Rd on Friday night there were no buses due to some delay. After waiting 50 minutes I caught the express for double the fare. At Union station we had to catch a street car that let us off half way there, and then another shuttle bus that battled through traffic for 30 minutes to get to the venue. Horrible.

There is also no covering at BMO Field and it was supposed to rain. I brought an umbrella and they asked me to check it in. I did not, dodging a security check point instead to make my way onto the floor.

Getting back was no better. Nevertheless, this was a show I had waited 20 years to see as I had never saw a Genesis tour before.

Rumour has it that they will come back for a second leg with Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett. If that is true, I will cetainly be there.

TRUDEAU, CITIZEN OF LIES

2007-09-07T09:58:00.000-07:00

I remember when my brother (the one still alive) first got to vote in an election back in '84. He was a rebellious teenager and wanted to upset my dad who, as the son of Italian immigrants was a die hard Liberal. My brother went out to vote and when my dad asked him who he voted for, my brother said, Brian Mulroney.

Now my brother is no conservative and has recently positioned himself somewhere to the left of Jack Layton.

But back in '84, his goal was to upset my dad...and it worked. My mother even voted Liberal up until a few years ago when I started explaining things to her.

Point is, even though Trudeau did not run in '84, that is who my dad was voting for when he went in the booth. Like many Italian immigrants...oh hell, most of 'em, they came to Canada with dreams and because of much white Protestant bigotry, found it difficult to assimilate.

I understand on the surface why Trudeau is loved by many immigrants and why they revere him.

But what I do not understand is the white-washing of history that turned him into a saint of the secular left. Much of that legacy is built on lies. Yes, Trudeau helped make Canada more tolerant to immigrants, but he also exploited them by making Canada a country that was tolerant to their skin colour, not their values. That exploitation is what remains in the Liberal Party today.

I am glad Brian Mulroney is trying to correct the record. Trudeau is often called a citizen of the world. That he was. He was a friend to everyone.

Communists, dictators, fascists...Trudeau saw them all as just different philosophies towards equality. He protested Canada's entry into WWII against The National Socialists and was a dear friend of Fidel Castro who was a pall-bearer at his funeral.

"Trudeau and Castro took to each other from their first meeting in Cuba in 1976, which broke Castro's isolation and ruffled U.S. feathers. The two leaders saw each other regularly until well after Trudeau had left politics.

Mark Entwistle, Canadian ambassador to Cuba between 1993 and 1997, remembered sitting at the dinner table with the two men as they talked the nights away -- "intellectual soul mates, definitely."

Trudeau's legacy is a legacy of lies. Trudeau's belief in 'equality' and 'The Charter' was actually based on his belief that communism was a viable system. He knew with America to our south, he could never make Canada a communist, atheist nation, so instead he gradually instilled a value system in us that drove us further and further left.

And it has worked. Like a charm.

Yet, Trudeau was not an evil man. He was just a greatly simplistic and facile one who could not understand the philosophical contradictions in communism. Like many of his generation, he did not understand the evil committed by the National Socialists. He could not comprehend the genocide of Stalin or the horrors of Mao.

How could he? They preached love and equality, did they not?

His legacy is one of relativism and bowing at the altar of secularism.

For this, his golden boy reputation should be tarnished. His current defenders do not like the truth getting out because it changes the landscape. Good on Mulroney for speaking it.

I hope to hear more of Trudeau. He was everything I do not like in a politician; vapid, shallow, amoral and simplistic.

I guess with a reputation like that, it makes sense he was Canada's first rock star.

TRUDEAU FOR AMERICAN PRESIDENT!

2007-09-07T06:45:00.000-07:00

No, not the Marxist sympathizer who didn't even want us to fight the National Socialists. The REAL Trudeau, y'know, the character that teams up with Bruce Willis to fight terrorists in Die Hard 2: Die Harder.

He immortalized the line "Stack 'em, pack 'em and rack 'em."

I have always enjoyed Fred Dalton Thompson as an actor, even though I do not watch L & O.

I agree with John Podhoretz though;

"He won't get the nomination by default, he has to win it - and that will require him to go at Giuliani directly. "

This match up will be much more entertaining than Hillary vs. Obama because we don't know how it will end.

What we need to know now, is if Thompson is the real deal. I hope he is.

TORIES LEAVE TORY OVER CREATIONISM: OK WITH ANTI-DARWIN GENDER THEORY AND AL GORE

2007-09-05T21:42:00.000-07:00

I wish I could say I was shocked or stunned by the conservative bloggers saying they could no longer vote for John Tory over his comments saying creationism could be taught in religious schools.

First off; have you actually read his quote or did you let the all trusting, all knowing media interpret it for you?

Tory said that schools would have to meet the standards of the Ontario curriculum. There was no place where he said this would be taught in science classes.

In addition, for all of you secular, Hitchens lovin' 'intellectuals', who are now leaving Tory over this because you are 'personhoods of science';

Where are you when your kids are being taught Feminist Gender Theory which goes against science and says that there are - no - differences between the male and female of the human species when virtually every piece of modern scientific evidence we can amass says the exact opposite is true on both genetic and cognitive levels. We are equal to be sure, but definitely different.

Where are you when your kids are being taught Queer Theory (that's not me mocking it, that is what it is called) - which goes against science and says that we are all born pansexual and are only indoctrinated into heterosexuality. Of course one of Charles Darwin's major theories was that of Sexual Selection which believed in explicit gender differences and the purpose of human sexuality being for the propagation of the species. The transmission of male sperm to female egg.

Disagree with that? You just went against Darwin.

Much like love, truth hurts. But as personhoods of science, you wouldn't be offended by that. Would you?

It seems some of you like your Darwin when it is convenient but not when it is not.

I could ask where you are when An Inconvenient Truth is exposed to your children ad nauseum without any allowance for science based disagreement, but I think I've made my point.

I have been critical of John Tory here, but at least I have been consistant.

As with most things in this world, it's not the opinions themselves that bother me, it's the hypocrisy...the blasted hypocrisy.

OH YEAH, THAT'S WHY I COULD NEVER VOTE LIBERAL

2007-09-05T11:19:00.001-07:00

That whole 'University of Zero' stuff is exactly why I could never vote for the Liberal Party and can't stand the mainstream media.

To call this a non-issue is to make too big a deal of it. But the Liberals, and progressives in general, excel at language parsing to take things out of context to create an image of a scenario that does not exist.

What the left has done over the past two decades with regards to parsing of linguistics and context I can only call the rape of the English language. There is no other term for it. I remember seeing James Carville in an interview a few months back and he repeated again and again that context did not matter to him.

For truth, context is everything, but that is a philosophical notion that most relativist progressives do not believe in.

The reasons why American conservatives have made some inroads in the past two decades is because people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh realize that progressives play for keeps and they hit back hard. Yes, Coulter may be crass and crude, but she realizes her opponents will not let up and will keep their jackboot on your throat until you can't breath.

Then they will press a little harder.

If I were John Tory during my first debate these are three things I would repeat again and again as a mantra.

1. Dalton, why do you insist on treating people of faith as second class citizens?

2. Dalton, do you not think it is racist to call working class Muslims and Jews who want faith based education segregationists?

3. Dalton, do you intent to keep your views consistent and dismantle the Catholic school system?

DENTAL CARE A WINNER FOR MCGUINTY

2007-09-05T09:27:00.000-07:00

This is definitely a winner. For years I have been thinking that if we are to have a system where medical care is paid for by the government, then there is no logical reason why dental work should not be included.

I would argue that especially in the case of small children, where dental pain can be a very serious concern. My views on this issue are actually very NDP. I don't think this goes far enough.

I have no idea how many people would actually benefit from this, and the Star article reaks of bias, but if my tax dollars had to go towards anything paid for by the government, dental care would be at the top of the list.

I have been very critical of McGuinty on this blog but I have to give credit where credit is due. I am not a partisan. Love him or hate him, this move by team McGuinty is a stroke of genius. I also think it is a moral thing for a government to do.

With all of the policy pilfering by the Ontario Liberals of late, McGuinty's campaign is playing like a greatest hits of the opposition requests.

I eagerly await what John Tory's counter move will be.

FAMILY DAY: I LIKED IT BETTER WHEN IT WAS CALLED SUNDAY

2007-09-04T09:11:00.000-07:00

Funny, I remember when it used to be called Sunday.

Last time I checked, weren't the Liberals at both the Federal and Provincial level dedicated to making sure the family was - not - the focal point of our culture?

Oh, right, now that they have redefined the 'family' in Ontario to mean everything from two cats and a dog named Froofy to a group of cottagers in one house on a drinking binge I guess it is alright.

And of course, if you are opposed to this crass exploitation, you must be opposed to 'family', right?

Question: If Family Day is supposed to be the new Sunday, which is now a day of work where we no longer think of families;

And Dalton McGuinty is the creator of Family Day;

Does that make Dalton McGuinty some sort of deity?

THE LAST CANADIAN TYCOON: LANTOS STRIKES BACK

2007-08-31T10:30:00.000-07:00

I like that this is being announced just before TIFF.

The plot has just thickened in the Canadian film business.

Robert Lantos, Canada's only real movie tycoon, yesterday came riding back into the distribution business.
Suddenly the turf of independent Canadian distributors is getting to be a crowded, confusing field.

Lantos announced two new companies, Maximum Films International and Maximum Film Distribution, sending a clear signal that he is going into competition with the dominant Canadian film distributor he helped create.

"My roots are in distribution," he said in a phone interview. "This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a plan that will unfold over time."

The Canadian film industry is in far more dire straits then the American industry. I may critique many left wing American filmmakers, but at least they can make things that are commerical. At least in America there is always the chance that a 24, The Passion of the Christ or Transformers might squeak through.

In Canada, all we have are Don McKellar, Sarah Polley and Atom Egoyan, using public funds to make films that have zero interest to anyone but the elites in the Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver corridors.

I have no idea where Lantos wants to take this, but he is a smart man. And he must know he will not compete with Alliance making the same old junk.

He must know this. He must know.

PS. I will be away for the long weekend without a computer. Any comments that are left will not be moderated until Monday. Have a great end of summer long weekend.

Q & A: FAITH BASED EDUCATION, PART 2

2007-08-29T10:39:00.001-07:00

You said you thought John Tory's system is flawed. Why did you say that?

As with anything that receives government funding, the fact that it will have to conform to government guidlines means it could be watered down. That is a valid concern. But it also weeds out extremists.

Why do you think John Tory is insincere?

As I have said before, I like John Tory. Overall, he is a decent man. But he is not a real conservative. He has alienated the conservative base of the party and has tried cosying up to the media and the left. This is his token bone to PC social conservatives and attempt to woo socially conservative ethnic minority votes who might vote Liberal.

Why do you think John Tory is promoting it wrong?

He is trying to say Dalton McGuinty is an elitist for being a product of a Catholic educational system. It makes it look as though it is Catholics who are opposed to faith based schools. This is incorrect and rubs many practising Catholics the wrong way because they do not see Dalton McGuinty as a practising Catholic. McGuinty defines himself by his secular left-wing values. His percieved "Catholicism" has nothing to do with it.

Then is Dalton McGuinty an elitist?

At face value, yes. But I do not take McGuinty at face value. Political strategy is about thinking ahead; two steps more than the other guy. I think if/when he wins, he will use this criticism as an excuse to begin to dismantle the Catholic School System. That is what the secular left (his base) has been wanting for years. This would also appeal to many Red Tory's.

But what if Dalton really is for the Separate School system?

The Separate School system in Ontario is not truly Catholic. Most of the schools (I'd wager at least 50%) are fitted with teachers who have very secular left-wing views on issues of economics, the military, sexuality, law etc. Look at the positions of the Catholic teachers union; especially in Toronto. True Catholicism is neither left nor right. This left-wing ideological infiltration will not be immediately present in other faith based schools. That's why progressives are threatened.

But how do I know what is being taught in faith based schools? Shouldn't I be worried about extremist factions such as in Islam?

No, it should make you feel better. They will have to conform to provincial standards. Again, these schools already exist. If extremists are now in the system, it is better to have these schools open to inspection. But let's not just pick on what is a very small number in Islam, do you not think left wing extremists exist in the public school system supporting radical causes?

Next, Part 3.

Q & A: FAITH BASED EDUCATION, PART 1

2007-08-29T08:59:00.000-07:00

Do you support John Tory's faith based education proposal:

Yes. Even though it is a flawed system, I do not think he is sincere and he has promoted it improperly.

But isn't that segregationalist?

Of course not. The architects of Dalton McGuinty's 07 campaign have obviously told him to use that word so that images of KKK members in the rural American Democratic South of the mid 20th Century will come to mind. In fact, comparing working class Muslims, Jews, Sikhs etc, who just want their children to have a faith based education to the white segregationists of the South is racist and very small minded. This is pure strategy and is beginning to backfire.

But won't it separate and further divide Ontarians?

No. These schools already exist. It just means the province is respecting the decision of a parent to send their child to one. No one would be forced to go to them, just as they are not forced now. What we need to ask is why so many desire to leave the public system.

Who gets to decide what schools get funding?

The schools would have to meet a curriculum that is set by the province, just as the Separate School Board does.

But what about schools run by Wiccans and Scientologists? That sounds scary. Aren't you asking for a Charter Challenge here?

That has not happened anywhere else. The schools would have to meet provincial criteria. If our courts are so ill-guided that they would give funding to a Wiccan school or Scientology school, then we have much bigger concerns than the faith based system.

But didn't the Liberals used to be for faith based schools?

Not officially, but on an ideological level in the past, both Dalton McGuinty and the current education minister said they would be open to talking about it. Many ideological liberals, leftists or progressives used to be for it also.

Why the switch?

This is where culture and ideology come into play. Canada has made a huge cultural shift in the past decade. When ideological liberals percieved Canada and Ontario to be conservative and Christian/Catholic, they desired a faith based funding system as a way of eroding that culture for the purpose of diversity and multiculturalism. Now that they see Ontario is stridently secular with neo-feminist social values, they see religious based schools as a threat.

Next, Part 2.

AIDS VICTIMS BURIED ALIVE

2007-08-27T11:06:00.000-07:00

If there is even a small grain of truth to this story then it is one of the most horrific and tragic news stories I have ever read.

"Some AIDS victims are being buried alive in Papua New Guinea by relatives who cannot look after them and fear becoming infected themselves, a health worker said Monday.

Margaret Marabe, who spent five months carrying out an AIDS awareness campaign in the remote Southern Highlands of the South Pacific nation, said she had seen five people buried while still breathing.

One was calling out "Mama, Mama" as the soil was shoveled over his head, said Marabe, who works for a volunteer organisation called Igat Hope, Pidgin English for I've Got Hope."

I have written before that I had a gay brother, who died from AIDS in January 1993. I am sure he is in a much better place right now.

This story quite simply breaks my heart because it is rooted in ignorance and fear.

MISTER BEAN'S HOLIDAY: AMERICAN IMPERIALISM REVISTED

2007-08-25T10:01:00.000-07:00

I love movies. I went to film school. But I do not always have time to review films. So today, I will let a guest critic present a review of Mr. Bean's Holiday.

My guest critic is Andre Bedouin. He has a PHD in Film and Anthropological studies. In his spare time, Andre is dedicated to making the world a better place through academia and tolerance.

Take it away Andre!

Mr. Bean's Holiday, (Universal Pictures) serves as a graphic example of British Colonization and by association, a propagandistic film that creates one dimensional support for American Imperialism.

Mr. Bean, a displaced British occupier on vacation in France during the war in Iraq, clearly represents the colonizing by the British of culture it sees as subservient to it. When he creates havoc at Cannes, it is a symbol of colonial Britain (and by association Imperialist America) taking over the culture and appropriating it to his/its own end. The pacified, neutered patrons even look on at the befuddled Bean/Bush/Blair in 'shock and awe'. Bean's ambivalence to the destruction he wreaks is as though he is saying to France/Iraq "Bring it on".

That the viewer is asked to enjoy these 'antics', makes one complacent in maintaining the anti-Gramscian cultural hegemony of the state in a capitalist society. This is offensive to the post-modern viewer.

The film is also homophobic and homoerotic at the same time. Mr. Bean, with his long lean legs and lithe dancers body, is clearly intended as a latent homosexual. Time and again he is either awkward around womyn or does not acknowledge them at all. His legs are his phallic symbol. Much like the penis or -cockette- they represent however, he is all erection with no release.

This subtext makes it a prime discourse on sexual repression in post-colonial Western Judeo-Christian society. Taking Foucault into account, Mr. Bean represents the dichotomy of the hypersexualized homoerotic fantasy. He is also the repressed 'other' that will not allow itself expression in a homophobic patriarchal Western culture. Had this film been made in a sexually free matriarchal culture such as Syria, Iran or pre-colonized Iraq, this text would be more open and nurtured.

Hence, Mr. Bean's Holiday resurrects a typical jingoistic expression of the dead, white man's culture. A patriarchal merging of both a capitalist meta-structure and the dichotomy of the 'other' that it represses through its own inherent contradictions.

1/2 star for the oppressive return of Mr. Bean. The half star is because I could drink at the screening. It is rated G but should be an R so as to not influence children or the aged.

Thanks, again Andre!

ABORTION IN CANADA: SOME FACTS

2007-08-24T11:32:00.001-07:00

Some bloggers have mentioned an abortion protest that occurred in Toronto yesterday. Others have taken issue with it.

I just wanted to clarify something about this issue so that anyone who wants to discuss it will be informed.

There are no laws regarding abortion in Canada at this time in our history. None. We are the only country in the civilized world to not address this issue in any way.

Theoretically, if you can find a doctor who will perform it, you can kill your child up until the moment it is born in Canada. Period. For any reason. There is no grey area about this in Canadian law because there is no Canadian law.

While most doctors might not perform the procedure, at this point in Canada's history there are no laws restricting an abortion for any reason.

That is one of the reasons why abortion is a multimillion dollar industry in Canada and private clinics are allowed. Abortion doctors do not live in Parkdale.

You can abort your child for any reason from rape and incest, to gender selection, birth control reasons or your baby has Down's Syndrome.

There are no legal ramifications whatsoever.

Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, these facts must be acknowledged.

This is not a pro-life or pro-choice post but a post about facts. I do not think all people who are pro-choice are evil and I do not think all people who are pro-life are saints. But I do think we need to, as a country address the facts of this issue, because without the facts, how can you find the truth.

BBC CENSORING PROGRAM CONTENT: NOT THE FIRST TIME

2007-08-20T10:06:00.001-07:00

The new BBC show Casualty has changed its plans to open its season with the depiction of an Islamic terrorist bombing.

Under pressure, they will now say the bombing is the work of animal rights extremists.

I remember after 24 became a hit, the BBC came up with its version called Spooks, which was renamed MI:5 for the North American audience so as to not offend politically correct sensibilities. We rented those DVD's a few months back and the first episiode of that series was about a series of bombings created by pro-life evangelicals.

A few years ago, I was able to get a screenplay I wrote on the subject of terrorism and the Irish Republican Army to the BBC and got very positive feedback on it. Then this happened, and I received a polite letter saying the screenplay was well very written and researched but the subject matter was too sensitive at this time.

After a while, not being able to deal with certain subjects is just poor story writing and indicative of a culture that does not want to deal with truth on any level.

Which is what political correctness is really about, anyway.

FIVE HILLS JOHN TORY HAS TO CLIMB (AKA THE UNDISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN)

2007-08-20T08:12:00.000-07:00

5. Too many left-wing parties (Greens, NDP) that will bleed to the Liberals at the last minute

4. Too many centrist voters still fear what they perceive to be 'Mike Harris' elements in the Ontario PC party. It is not true, but it matters.

3. Toronto's demographic has changed in the past 10 years to drift further left. Even centrist candidates are too far right for Toronto at this time in its history. I focus on Toronto because Toronto counts for a lot.

2. John Tory, while a nice man, has not done nearly enough to distinguish himself as an even center-right politician. Other than his religious school funding proposition, what of significance has he done to appeal to his base? On most other occasions he has done everything he can to show he actually disagrees vehemently with his base. Problem is, it leaves grassroots PC's unmotivated to vote for him and left-wing Ontarians will not vote for him anyway. Not a way to win an election.

1.Campaign is based on public anger against Dalton McGuinty and his promise breaking, not based on wanting to vote for Tory. And getting an Ontarian angry against a Liberal is pretty much harder to do than getting an NDP'r angry against Hamas.

I have said before, John Tory is a good man. I have met him and I like him. I think he would have made a great centrist mayor for Toronto. But sadly, he does not seem to have the fire in the belly. He is essentially a wealthy businessman who wants something else to do in the autumn of his life. He does a lot of good on his own and much charity work. But he is not really a political animal. That is something different. He is trying to win based on just being a nice guy without really distinguishing himself.

The fact that I, and everyone knows what I think about Dalton McGuinty, can't even get motivated to really want Tory to win says something.

Personally I think McGuinty will get back with possibly even another majority. Being a shite politician doesn't matter to many Ontarians. It's the label that counts. They'd rather gargle the acidic mouthwash of the Liberal Brand then try a new minty fresh brand labelled Progressive Conservative.

It's sad, but I wouldn't even rule out Tory losing against Wynne. I know many will say it is unlikely but...

...ultimately, I just think John Tory is an ideological liberal who is a PC because that is where most of his business contacts reside. That doesn't make him a bad man...just an undistinguished gentleman.

THIS JUST IN: ELVIS NOT A RACIST!

2007-08-16T11:06:00.000-07:00

Here is a well written article on the unfortunate rumour that has taken place amongst many muscians that Elvis Presley was a racist.

Sadly, old left-wing stereotypes and cliches die hard, especially in the arts.

At least this is a start.

MENNONITES OR NOMADS

2007-08-16T07:08:00.000-07:00

Good for them.

I guess if I could say I knew a lot of unintelligent Mennonites and a lot of brilliant graduates of the public school system I would have an issue with this, but I can't so I won't.

I also suspect the school system will be a key issue in the fall Ontario elections.

This is probably the issue that will also make me vote for John Tory with at least some sense of not selling out.

Q & A: POLYGAMY

2007-08-14T10:09:00.000-07:00

I've been wanting to write about the polygamy issue for some time so I think I'll try now. Rather than do it as an essay though, I'll try to address the issue as a form of Q & A.

What does polygamy have to do with SSM? We were told they are not connected and one would not lead to the other.

You were lied to or mislead. Most politicians like Paul Martin knew the two were linked, which is why the Martha Bailey report was commissioned among others. The academic and legal argument for SSM marriage was that the institution of marriage had nothing to do with children and therefore requiring gender differences discriminated against homosexuals. If you believe this, that marriage is only about property rights and tax laws between consenting adults, then why should it not be opened to more than one person? That is why this issue is coming to the forefront now.

I know and understand that not every heterosexual couple has children, but it is what society has always aspired to in the institution. If you take away that aspiration, and it only becomes about the economics, then why shouldn't 3, 4 or more people be allowed to marry? Similarly why shouldn't groups of persons who do not have sex be allowed to marry also?

But isn't the polygamy issue in BC about how far freedom of religion can go?

This case has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of religion. Think about it, does one - have - to have a religion to be in a polygamous or polyamorous relationship. I have one friend who is in such a relationship and she is not religious at all. This is merely a smokescreen so that the public will not relate it to SSM. This case happens to involve religion, but that is not a necessary requirment for wanting to be in a polygamous relationship. Does one have to have a religion to want a three way or more sexual relationship?

But what of the issue of abuse against women and children that are being levelled?

These have never been proven and we must define abuse. When the average person or police officer looks for abuse they mean sexual molestation, forcible confinement, physical abuse, beatings etc. When many feminist or academic groups look for abuse in this situation they mean the actual polygamous marriage itself. In academic feminist parlance, abuse refers to ideology or anything partriarchal.

Here is an excerpt from the Vancouver Sun, 2003.

In addition, B.C.-based Jancis Andrews, on behalf of the Canadian Federation of University Women, is aggressively lobbying Premier Gordon Campbell to stop funding the Bountiful school and clamp down on polygamy, which is illegal in Canada. ...

She alleges children are taught many unconscionable things at the school, including that blacks are inferior, females must not consider careers and that underage girls must marry and have sex with whomever the patriarch decrees.

Now if these things are being taught, that is horrible...but waitaminute; Some of these accusations are typical left-wing allegations against conservatives and supporters of Stephen Harper, John Tory and George Bush too.

Remember, the CFUW aside, any marriage that recognizes gender differences is seen as abuse by many people with a modern feminist academic world view.

Many of them believe traditional marriage is a form of slavery for women because it is a patriarchal institution that by definition oppresses women like slavery did to people of black or African ancestry. This is the type of abuse they are looking for and why the police are having a hard time proving it. Of course they can't say that in public or they would expose themselves for what they are.

Here are some prominent academic feminist quotes on the subject:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break—up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. " Linda Gordon

Sexism is NOT the fault of women — kill your fathers, not your mothers. Robin Morgan

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Robin Morgan

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." Andrea Dworkin

Also look at this site, beyondmarriage.org, which is signed by many prominant members of academia and the arts including Gloria Steinem and Dan Brown. This issue has always been far more complex then we have been allowed to discuss.

What about the Martha Bailey report that the Liberal Party of Canada commissioned? Isn't she for polygamous marriage?

Bailey is a feminist professor from Queen's University. As a former attendee I can tell you it has the most pre-eminent feminist law school in Canada that specializes in radical feminist thought. Bailey is from this radical train of thought that believes by legalizing polygamy we will destroy the institution itself. The logic is; by making every relationship marriage - ultimately nothing is marriage and the institution dies. Stanley Kurtz in the National Review dissects her argument here.

These people care nothing about the well being of women or children. They care about their own extremist ideology which sadly, is now the mainstream in our culture.

Is this why there is ideological confusion on the issue?

Yes. If you really believe the 'equality' under the charter argument for SSM there is no logical reason to be opposed to polygamy. But they were never straight with you as to what that 'equality' argument really entailed or what assumptions about marriage they held. That is why we are at the crossroads and people in both camps do not know which way they should turn, or what to believe.

In many ways, the gay community were just used as pawns in this game by people who had a much larger agenda. I understand why many gay people said they wanted SSM based on what they were told. But it also says something that as of June of this year, only one marriage license was issued to a Canadian same-sex couple in Toronto. Funny for something we were told was so revolutionary, desired and in demand. Just. One.

What about Muslims? Are there not various sects of Islam that practice polygamy?

Polygamy is not the norm in Islam, but there are many sects that practice it. There is also much more history in favour of polygamy than SSM marriage. To those feminists that will say all polygamous relationships are abuse, will they say the same thing if Muslims speak up? Will this not leave them open to charges of racism? That is one of the many reasons why this is such a hot topic for politicians to persue.

But waitaminute, didn't the highest court in Ontario already rule that a boy could have two lesbian mothers and a father? What's the difference between that and polygamy?

Exactly. Once you eliminate the man-woman traditional family as the norm to aspire to, the difference becomes only ideological and academic. Virtually every credible study that has been done on this subject confirms that children are best reared in a one mother-one father enviroment which is natural law. Obviously there are cases where good children are raised by good parents who are single or alone for whatever reason. They should be loved and treated with compassion. But that is not what society should aspire to.

Many doctors who understand this, such as those who formed the American College of Pediatricians have been smeared or lied about much like those who question man made global warming.

Others, such as Margaret Somerville, who is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine and the Founding Director of the Faculty of Law's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University are harder to discredit. Her views on gender, child rearing and marriage are complex and rooted in science and that is why the small minded profs at Ryerson had an issue with her a little over a year ago. She is world renowned.

Where will this issue land?

Hard to tell. Unlike SSM this one breaks down in more choppy demographics. People on both the left and right are opposed or for it for various reasons. I am opposed to polygamy and contrary to what supporters of SSM want you to believe, that is why we are dealing with this now. With the laws already changed, my feeling is it should be hard to stop. But at the end of the day, I will bet on the feminist contingent in Canada to win out and the media focussing on the 'evil Christian' element at this point. At any rate, children and science lose.

So those are where my thoughts are on this subject. I welcome all intelligent discourse.

TORONTO: DON'T BLAME CRIME ON THE POOR

2007-08-14T07:40:00.000-07:00

We've all read about the fatal panhandling that occurred in Toronto last week and ended in the death of Ross Hammond last Saturday night.

Of course we also know that the general response of Toronto city council is to show very little compassion or respect to the victims and their families and to issue statements about having compassion for the homeless and the poor.

I'll just say a few things.

I have been on welfare once for almost a year.

I have had to go with my family at Christmas-time to a food bank as a teenager, after my father died to make sure we at least had peanut butter and bread to eat for the holiday season.

Being poor does not make one commit crime. This is essentially what Toronto city council members are saying when they talk of blaming poverty for crime.

Being poor does not make one a criminal. Being a criminal makes one a criminal.

Now obviously, the world is a complex place and one must always try to show compassion to those who are homeless. Crime can occur out of situations of desperation and need and we should always try to understand why someone might do something like this. But there is an old saying that one must first know the rules before one can break them, and Toronto is a city which threw out the rule book years ago.

With a myopic view based on well-to-do, white, academic neo-Marxist oppression theory that seeks to control, not empower the poor, Toronto will make any excuse to having poor because that is how well-to-do, white, neo-Marxist politicians like David Miller, Howard Moscoe or Michael Bryant stay in power.

Have they consoled the family? Have they offered any compassion at all? My wife and I were on Queen Street West just last week and things like this get one thinking. We were also accosted a few years ago by a gang member at Yonge and St. Clair.

Toronto is quickly becoming one of the most extreme cities in North America for its ideology. Torontonians love to cry how their city is still safe relatively speaking; and relatively speaking it is. But the crime that is occurring is deadly and random and both visitors and Torontonians alike need to know that if you are the victim of a crime at the hand of the homeless or vicious Jamaican gangs or drug dealers, The City of Toronto will have no pity, mercy or compassion on you or your family.

Quite the opposite.

The left-wing City of Toronto will show all of its pity, mercy and compassion to those that did you or your family wrong or worse.

INGMAR BERGMAN RIP

2007-07-31T10:34:00.000-07:00

The beauty of Bergman's work was that he was able to explore the most complex of ideas through the simplest of stories and images. Many Bergman films can be broken down into very simplistic plot descriptions, but the dialogue and subtext was everything.

My favourite is The Virgin Spring, but even his misses such as The Serpent's Egg could give you something to contemplate for days. I remember renting Cries and Whispers when I was very young based on a review from Roger Ebert. It was unlike anything I had seen and made me want more, even though I did not fully comprehend it in my early teens.

Bergman's gift was that he was genuinely inquisitive, genuinely thoughtful and genuinely made you think because he was a thinker.
His films gave the impressions of dialogues. You could hear what he was saying but never feel he was preaching to you.

Though he constantly worked, his key period from the late fifties to the early seventies is one of the most productive in film history with regards to output vs. quality.

He raised the bar very high.

If you have not seen an Ingmar Bergman film ever, I suggest The Virgin Spring or Wild Strawberries as a good place to start although his most famous is The Seventh Seal.

One could make a very real argument that he was one of, if not the greatest filmmaker who has yet lived and contributed to the artform.

May he rest in peace.

IS MICHAEL BRYANT LYING ABOUT GUN STATS?

2007-07-30T08:11:00.000-07:00

I am happy that the Federal Conservatives, at least at this juncture in time, are not allowing themselves to be bullied on this issue. The permanently outraged left, as always seem to be a bit confused.

First, they flat out denied that there was any hand gun issue in Toronto. Any mention of handguns or gangs led to accusations of fearmongering and racism. Now that the issue is undeniable, they want to blame everyone but the culprits themselves.

But...

"...Ontario's Attorney-General Michael Bryant said a ban would eliminate 30% to 50% of guns on the street that are stolen from Canadian households.

"If there's no gun, then there's no funeral," said Mr. Bryant. "It's the law of supply and demand, and one of the major sources of illegal guns is the 5,000 guns stolen from Canadians from their homes every single year. They don't end up, those guns, in recycling bins. They end up in the hands of people who use guns to wreak havoc on communities and obviously to cause terrible tragedies.""

Quite frankly, I do not believe this stat. Yes, I believe Bryant is either making things up or conciously lying through his teeth. Can this stat of FIFTY PERCENT be proven. I'll gladly acknowledge my error if this is so but until then, I do not believe it. Why won't someone ask him to source this stat?

As a matter of fact, if the number can be proven to be this high I might change my mind on this issue. But it sounds like liberal spin to me.

Gun collecting is a very expensive hobby. It is very elitist. The majority of weapons found in gun collectors homes tend to be antiques; WWI rifles, WWII weapons, pirate guns, rifles with bayonets etc. The types of guns that no longer fire or guns where it would be near impossible to find ammunition for.

The types of collectors that own these weapons by and large are wealthy and do not have homes you can casually break into before you go out to engage in some good ol'fashioned, North American street violence. They tend to live in gated communities and have complex alarm systems. When their homes get broken into, it gets reported.

Michael Coren addresses the issue brilliantly in his current column.

"Such drivel does not, however, explain how Norway, with one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, manages to have one of the lowest crime rates.

Or how Israel, a society where guns are extraordinarily common, has so few criminal shootings.

Or how Britain with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world has a violent crime rate that is virtually out of control.

It's too late to play silly games any more. If handguns are the cause of all this we have to ask why there are so few shootings in, for example, the Dutch, Ukrainian, Irish, Portuguese, Korean, Hindu or African communities. Why, in fact, there are so few shootings in any community outside of the West Indian and specifically Jamaican. "

The fact is, the real root causes for this complicated issue entails all of the issues the left does not want to deal with and has been running away from for years:

1. Moral relativism

2. Anti-family culture of nihilism

3. Racial cultural issues

Toronto it seems will be willing to have a lot more shootings before it can deal with this issue. Whether it is taxes, guns or gangs, Torontonians seem unwilling to accept any other solution other than the most facile of left wing pronouncments. Then they complain, elect another socialist politician and rinse, wash, repeat.

Hard to have sympathy for that. I do have sympathy for the families whose lives are affected by this violence. My future wife and I were accosted by a gang member at Yonge and St. Clair in Toronto on New Year's Eve, five years ago.

Sadly, when I take stock of the people I know in Toronto, I do not see Torontonians becoming more moderate or open to new ideas. Instead, I see them getting more aggresive and militant in their views.

Stephen Harper is right to have written off The Big Smoke in the next election. As I've said before, if Karla Homolka could run as a Liberal in the next election Torontonians would gladly vote for her. 'Well at least she is not in the party of Stockwell Day', they would rationalize.

I feel sorry for the people in Toronto who have to live and deal with the effects of violence in their everyday lives. But my sympathy is wearing thin for people who do not want to even acknowledge personal responsibility and the truth that some behaviour is not justified.

DEFINING SEXISM FOR A NEW GENERATION: JOHN LENNON IS DEAD

2007-07-25T14:53:00.000-07:00

By now, virtually everyone is familiar with the Warren Kinsella sexism incident and the, in my opinion, kinda, maybe, half-assed, sorta make light of it, could be an apology but maybe not as strong as wished, that he issued.

Is Warren Kinsella really a sexist? I have no idea. I do not know the man.

But then again it depends on how one defines sexism? Based on the very public image Warren has crafted for himself, I'd have to guess that Warren is, a throwback to the ideology of the 60's and 70's. He seems to be the poster boy for the modern, politically correct, white, secular, urban liberal. In his writing, he appears to wear it on his sleeve. Right down to his proudly uninformed 70's era Catholicism and obsession over bad and dated rock n' roll to give him an 'edge', and keep him young. In other words, his public persona is the typical boomer. At least that is how I perceive the image without knowing the man in reality. I could be wrong.

And that is what I would really like to use this incident as a spring board for.

Kinsella aside, baby boomer progressives are actually the ones stuck in the past, not a conservative woman like Lisa MacLeod. The 'feminists' of the boomer generation (male or female) said they wanted 'choice'. But the word 'choice' infers that there is at least more than one option. Yet these individuals defined choice as being anything - other - than what they perceived as the stifling patriarchy of the '50's - hence the 'baking cookies' reference. They say they wanted to give women choice and equality, yet any woman who made the 'wrong' choice was seen as stupid, vapid and not a true 'woman'. Hence the contempt for any woman that is not a liberal or progressive - why they are so quick to mock, damn or villify a conservative woman at any turn yet not see how they themselves are the new sexists.

Which , is not truly feminist at all.

And yet people always make mistakes. But the judgement...that is why these incidents stick out. Because this generation of progressives are so quick to be intolerant and judgemental of anyone who disagrees with their increasingly narrow minded, stagnant, irrational world view that is rooted in a utopia that not only never existed...but could never exist.

Whether it is the increasingly hysterical assertions and lies of Michael Moore; the racist and sexist incidents of the past week involving the Ontario Liberals; or the Nobel Peace Prize Winner who said she could kill George Bush, this is a generation that is coming apart at the seams. Their value system was based on desire, not truth; juvenile rebellion, not mature stability; hedonism, not wisdom; emotion, not reason. Even feminist icon Erica Jong's daughter has said she was sold a bad bill of goods.

They see the world changing but lament they are slowly losing control of it. Bill Clinton achieved little to nothing but teenage scandal as a president; Trudeau created a confused and divisive Canada; the sexual revolution led us to HIV; materialism led us to greed.

Imagine, the anthem for this generation, was not a complex song about how to achieve utopia. It was a facile dirge that made trite of the complex nature of reality. Indeed, for this generation, that finally will have to realize that John Lennon is dead, that is a true shock to the system.

CHAVEZ AND THE FALLACY OF ATHEISTIC GOVERNMENT

2007-07-24T11:27:00.000-07:00

I am not at all surprised at how a dictator like Hugo Chavez would hold Catholic bishops, cardinals and priests in utter contempt.

Stories like this, where we find out that,

President Hugo Chavez called a cardinal from Honduras an "imperialist clown" after the Roman Catholic prelate warned of increasing authoritarianism under the Venezuelan leader.

and

"Catholic leaders in this South American country have warned of alleged threats to individual freedoms under Chavez's administration and criticized his plans for a sweeping constitutional reform to transform Venezuela into a socialist state."

Of course Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga is considered a moderate in the Catholic Church but the contempt with which Chavez holds him is not surprising. In the past few months we have witnessed increasing personal freedoms being curtailed by Chavez. Whether it is the

shutting down of TV stations critical of him;

lying about political opponents;

putting up a Che Guevara monument in a formerly Catholic hospital;

economic reforms that hurt prosperity of the individual;

or saying he will kick out foreigners who question him, Chavez is a true monster in the making.

I write this post to again show the philosophical link between atheism and a Marxist dictatorship. At this point in history, atheism is very fashionable. Books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and many others are on the best seller lists and atheism is even becoming a trendy beleif among many conservatives, even here on the Blogging Tories.

Am I saying atheists are bad people? Of course not.

What I am saying is that philosophically, communism is the economic system of atheism. Equality is something that most human beings desire. But we all have different philosophies and define it differently. Once one eliminates the existance of God as the measure against which equality is determined, all one has is the rules and law of man.

But the rules and laws of man are not constant. They always change. What is considered a right by one culture is a heresy in another. What is a right for one generation is considered illegal and immoral by the next. If all one has is the rule of man there is no 'truth'. That is when tyranny can enter the door.

It is no coincidence that the most democratic nation on the face of the earth is arguably the one most influenced by the existence of God.

That is not to say all higher power influenced states are good or desirable. Obviously, parts of the middle east are a testament to that.

But, atheists need to be reminded that the philosophy of atheistic inspired communism has led to more death, horror, and genocide on the planet earth in the past 100 years than Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, capitalism and America combined in 2000. That's not a track record to be particulary proud of and that is why the Hitchens and Dawkins arguments are sophistry at best and child-like at worst.

Again, does that mean atheists are bad people. No. But we should never allow atheists to allow their vision of equality to superceed that of one based on the existence of God. That is where we are perilously close to in the West.

But what of the libertarian, socially liberal but fiscally conservative atheist?

Your system is inadequate. Libertarianism is worthy in small select doses (ie. free speech) but as a complete philosophy, it is equally as flawed as socialism and ususally opens the door to it. It assumes all people's belief systems are the same and everyone has everyone else's best interests at heart. That is the only way it works. Which is to say it does not work at all and is little better than socialism. The atheist libertarian fails to consider that one persons 'right to do something' will inevitably interfere with someone else's 'right from' doing something.

Libertarian atheists rarely address issues of culture, persuasion and cause and effect. Indeed, one could very well argue that it was the lack of faith in a higher power and belief in the rule of man's ever changing philosophy of secular equality that allowed Canada and the Conservative Party to drift so far left in the past two decades.

Libertarians will argue that they are all about responsibility. Really? I can find many libertarian atheists who will argue for complete freedom in terms of market and sexuality. I rarely if ever find one who will defend freedom of religion on a cases per case basis or the right of someone not to be exploited by a corporation.

And please, spare me the 'we are people of science' routine. A person who is employed as a scientist is a person of science. Other than that, you are following fashion, ideology and trend. In order for an atheist to say for certain there is no God, they would have to read every argument in favour of God that has ever existed. Beyond that, they are equally motivated by faith and guilty of lazy thinking.

If you know any atheists that have read as much, please let me know. I'd love to meet them.

LIBERAL PARTY OF ONTARIO A HOTBED OF RACISM?

2007-07-23T20:02:00.000-07:00

This story in the Toronto Star quite frankly disgusts me.

Not because I think Dalton McGuinty is a racist. Although I do not know for sure.

Not because I think the majority of people in his cabinet are racists. Although I do not know for sure.

Not because I think the people running his re-election campaign are racists. Although I do not know for sure.

But because come fall, Dalton McGuinty, his cabinet and virtually everyone running McGuinty's re-election campaign will most likely do everything they can to portray John Tory and/or his team, who I am not even a fan of, as racist, misogynist, homophobic right-wingers ready to cut social programs and destroy Ontario.

For all of my adult life, the Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Ontario and the people who run their election campaigns have done everything they can to foster racial tensions in Canada/Ontario. It is disgusting. They are far worse for this than the NDP.

They find out our differences, exploit them, foster fear based on race, gender, religion and sexual orientation and say they are the only solution regardless of the cost.

If this incident, where,

"Premier Dalton McGuinty...apologized to University of Toronto honours student Evon Reid for the email from his cabinet office that used the term "ghetto dude";

had occurred in the federal Conservative or Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario it would never be lived down. Period.

It would cost them the campaign. The mainstream media would play it up whenever they could. It would be mentioned in every debate. It would tarnish the reputation of the entire party. No excuses would be allowed. Period.

The Liberal Party at all tiers, the mainstream media, the people who run the Liberal campaigns and their supporters would run with it at all costs.

I have said that I am not the biggest fan of John Tory. But I believe he is a decent man. I hope he runs with this. Do not let it die.

Because the Ontario Liberals sure as hell won't let it get in the way of how they run what will most likely be a divisive, exploitative, smear campaign.

From personal experience I can tell you that the only people I know who make racist, misogynist or homophobic jokes are my progressive acquaintances. They judge others as hateful one minute and lay into a litany of rancor the next, right before they judge others again.

What kind of culture currently exists inside the Liberal Party of Ontario and Canada that might foster this sort of bias, bigotry and attitude? The gross hypocrisy and arrogance is staggering.

I hope Evon Reid can get over this incident. It is not just a small thing. If he is a progressive, I hope he gives his vote to the NDP.

As for myself, a few weeks ago I asked why I should vote for John Tory. I think I may have just found my answer.

VOTE NO TO PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

2007-07-22T09:16:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I was downtown in the market district of Toronto. An older woman was handing out flyers for proportional representation which will be voted on in Ontario on October 10th. She asked me if I had educated myself on the issue. Here is a rough transcript of the conversation.

WOMAN: Have you educated yourself on proportional representation?

NICOL: Yes.

WOMAN: So you understand and have educated yourself as to what it is about?

NICOL: Yes. I am educated enough to know I will not be voting for it?

WOMAN: But a citizens coalition of your peers decided it was best for Ontario to take this route.

NICOL: Citizens coalition? No, maam. It was a coalition of judges, lawyers and academics. Hardly a 'citizens coalition'.

WOMAN: That's not true. I have the list.

NICOL: Yes it is. It was actually quite elitist. Were there any, say, houswives on the coalition?

WOMAN: I...I think there was one I know.

NICOL: What was her name?

WOMAN: There definitely was one.

NICOL: What was her name? You said you have the list.

WOMAN: Well, there were students.

NICOL: Exactly. Sounds pretty elitist to me. And very left wing.

WOMAN: What! What are you talking about?

NICOL: Do you know about the German concept of realpolitik?

WOMAN: No.

NICOL: It's the politics of how things play out in the real world. You and your friends just want to tilt the province irrevocably hard-left. It will give the fringe left-wing parties like the NDP the constant balance of power and make the government always tilt ideologically to the left. 15% of the hard left will hold more power than say 36% moderate or right. In Italy it allowed communists to have immense power in governement and now they can never vote to them out.

WOMAN: But we need more women in government.

NICOL: What kind of women?

WOMAN: Well...women.

NICOL: So you would be fine with a pro-life, evangelical woman in government?

WOMAN: Well, we need all views.

NICOL: So you would be fine with a pro-life evangelical woman in government?

WOMAN: Well...

NICOL: You can't say it can you. You are a hard leftist and are not being up front with people about this issue.

WOMAN: I have not at all told you what party I vote for.

NICOL: You're NDP.

WOMAN: How do you know that?

NICOL: Tell me I'm wrong. You're NDP.

WOMAN: I....I...how do you...I never said...

NICOL: Be honest with people maam.

On October 10th vote NO to proportional representation.

MANUFACTURING DISSENT IN TORONTO

2007-07-21T08:48:00.001-07:00

I regret that I have not been able to post as much in the past few weeks. Assignments that involve much writing have taken over.

Nevertheless, I thought I should bring this to your attention.

Manufacturing Dissent, the documentary by progressive Toronto film-makers Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk is playing Toronto this week at the newly renovated classic Royal Cinema one screen theatre on College Street. They serve real ol' fashioned butter there. None of this Becel or Golden Topping crap.

Caine and Melnyk were liberal followers of Moore who wanted to make a fan type doc about him and proceeded to get in touch with the man. Yet the more of him they experienced, the more they questioned and the more static they got from Moore and his team.

This film documents this and is very critical of Moore and the methods he uses.

The impression I get is that many Blogging Tories or conservatives in general don't really care about film, the arts or its impact on society in general. I think that is unfortunate because that is a huge part of why we lose so many battles.

If you live in Toronto, I suggest you make the effort to see this film and support these courageous progressive film-makers (did I just write that!) for their effort. I give credit where credit is due and I can tell you that when you are in the film industry, it takes a hell of a lot of courage to critique Moore at a party and these filmmakers claim to have already been blacklisted from some festivals and distributors for it.

If you want to change the culture this is how it starts. Especially given that nominal Republicans in the film industry such as Bruce Willis, Adam Sander, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Jerry Bruckheimer, Clint Eastwood, Vince Vaughn and some others seem about as agressively conservative these days as Avi Lewis during a hissy fit. I'm just sayin'.

I will certainly be going to one of the screenings this week.

DEAD EARTH LIVE!

2007-07-05T09:55:00.000-07:00

Many people have talked about the troubles surrounding Al Gore's Live Earth concerts happening this week-end. Cancelled concerts, poor ticket sales in some areas, questioning the green motivation of the stars have all come into question. It seems more like Dead Earth, or at least Getting by on Life Support Earth.

Finally, about a week ago, I went onto the Live Earth website to see who was actually playing.

I was actually surprised. There really is a shortage of top tier new talent tent-poling these things. It seems like most of the concerts are made up of old fogey acts like The Police, Genesis, Duran Duran, Bon Jovi, Madonna, Beastie Boys, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Roger Waters headlining, followed by a second tier of newer artists who are trying to get noticed. Acts like Bloc Party, Pussy Cat Dolls or Snow Patrol.

I was surprised at who did - NOT - show up.

Where is U2, REM, a big splashy Pink Foyd reunion, The Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney. Why are activists like Springsteen, Green Day, Pearl Jam and Nine Inch Nails all MIA?

Where is an eco star diva like La Babs Streisand?

I am sure that no matter this thing does it will be spun as a success, but I have to say, the line up seems rather sad. They also seem very inconsistant, which also shows how fractured the music scene is today. Live Aid in '85 had predominantly pop/rock acts. Yet Live Earth in '07 is a bizarre amalgam of rap, hip hop, pop, rock, classic, folk etc.

Who could watch this thing for more than 2 or 3 acts in a row?

Increasingly, I am glad that more people are tired of the fear mongering surrounding the environmental movement. I do not think Al Gore an evil or bad man but I do think that there is great capacity for really bad things to happen with the fear he is spreading.

If you really believe the earth is dying, what WON'T you do to stop it? What do you do to people who question you?

I hope more true scientists question this movement and they are loud enough before things get too far on.

WHY SHOULD I VOTE FOR JOHN TORY?

2007-06-29T09:13:00.000-07:00

Just askin'?

I mean is there a conservative bone in his body? I met Tory once briefly after he lost his mayoral bid. He is a very nice man and I told him I voted for him. I still think he would have made a great middle of the road, appeal to everyone but smack down on crime, kinda mayor.

However, as the head of the provincial Progressive Conservatives, he has fallen into the same traps of many of those who have gone before him. Woo the urban white, latte liberal set, talk up the arts, dance at Pride and then just assume the conservative base will follow because who else are they gonna vote for.

Schwarzenegger has done well going to the left, but he has also done many conservative things with the California educational system that go unreported in the mainstream media. At his core, we all know Arnold is more conservative than he lets on. I could vote for him.

Tory I think is the opposite. A blue-blood with mucho tempo on his hands, so he wants to go to public office a la Mr. Smith. Except he would be much better running as a Liberal but his connections are with the blue-blood business community so he goes PC (and p.c. for that matter).

Nice man. But if I vote for him in the fall, and right now I am thinking I will not, it will only be after taking two shots of strong whiskey and holding my nose real tight.

I am not in his riding but any 'conservative' that could not get my automatic vote against a radical activist like Kathleen Wynne has got to be left desiring something. The fact that he thinks he can win in a riding currently held by her says a lot.

He is even going to hurt the LCBO's Food and Drink magazine, which is the only damn thing the Government of Ontario does right.

I remember sitting out a Federal election once in the mid-nineties 'cause I had to work overtime and I knew Presto! was gonna lose.

Convince me otherwise.

OBAMA DOESN'T KEEP THE FAITH, MAN

2007-06-25T06:42:00.000-07:00

Many outlets reported a few days ago how Barack Obama was speaking to a large church convention where he spoke of how the Christian right had 'hijacked' religion in America.

"At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design,"

This is typical rhetoric of the left and perhaps it explains why Obama will in fact not now or even ever be America's first black president.

Obama's comments assume that people of more conservative or orthodox Christian faiths have had positive experiences with the left but have just been brainwashed into voting Republican. In other words, they are stupid and gullible.

No religious group should be beholden to any political party, but it is much easier for Democrats to point the finger at Evangelical leaders than look into themselves as to why Christians do not vote for them.

Obama seems more and more to be just another scion of the hard left who has very little awareness of religion but seeks to exploit it at every turn.

The left lost Christians once the left embraced Marxism and radical feminism as their core philosophies.

Does Obama really think that the left is tolerant of Christians? That the same people who get their views on religion from The DaVinci Code and Jesus Camp actually understand people of faith? That people who get their views on human sexuality from Michel Foucault are tolerant of the view of sexuality most Christians adhere to?

Obama thinks it is just a matter of trading off issues. So if you are opposed to SSM and abortion but want socialized medicine and want to help the environment, then why not just vote Democrat as opposed to Republican?

But it is a question of philosophy. The philosophies of the left, which may brush up on faith based values from time to time, are not rooted in them. They are rooted in other philosophies that are actually quite hostile to them.

The 08 elections will be interesting and I predict a Hillary Clinton win like many others. Unlike other conservatives however I think I would take her over Obama. Hillary is hard left, but she is smart enough to know that she could probably only push so far or risk not being elected again.

In the war against political correctness I'll take a left wing woman over a man any day or the week. Left wing men seem much more insecure and therefore prone to more manipulation and dishonesty.

But then again, she'll have Bill with her won't she?

LIBERAL DOC AGAINST MICHAEL MOORE BLACKLISTED?

2007-06-24T08:35:00.000-07:00

Here is an excellent article on liberal Toronto filmmakers, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine who have made a film criticizing Michael Moore called Manufacturing Dissent.

Of course, much like Michael Wilson, who made Michael Moore Hates America in 2004 and even had an endorsement by Roger Ebert, they cannot find distribution.

They tend to think they are being blacklisted.

"Two key U.S. documentary film festivals — Full Frame in Durham, N.C., and Silverdocs, the AFI/Discovery Channel event in Silver Spring, Md. — declined to screen "Dissent," in part because of Michael Moore. Silverdocs hoped to present "Sicko," and Moore was a special guest at Full Frame. A rep for one film buyer told the filmmakers in an e-mail that they were wary of the "political nature" of the film and would distribute "Dissent" on DVD in Canada but not in the U.S. (The filmmakers passed.)"

Given my own experiences in and with the industry, I'd have to say that I agree.

AFI TOP 100 FILMS

2007-06-21T10:52:00.000-07:00

The American Film Institute has just released its list for the top 100 American films.

The top 10 are:

10. The Wizard of Oz
9. Vertigo
8. Schindler's List
7. Lawrence of Arabia
6. Gone With The Wind
5. Singin' In The Rain
4. Raging Bull
3. Casablanca
2. The Godfather
1. Citizen Kane

Certainly a solid list, although the continual inclusion of Kane at the top seems more out of tradition than anything else.

I also think you can make real argument for taking Dr. Stranglove, Nashville, Mash, The Graduate, Pulp Fiction, Titanic, The Silence of the Lambs and All About Eve off of the (top 100) list entirely.

You could also make a case for Cool Hand Luke, Dirty Harry, The Untouchables and The Country Girl being on the (top 100) list.

PS.

Those of you partaking in the Facebook Great Canadian Wishlist; don't sweat it.

I have not partaken in it but when I read about it the first thing I did was think, if it looks like the pro-life side is gonna win...there's no way in Gaia's reincarnation that the CBC will let them win.

Period. Finito. There is a better chance of Michael Moore endorsing a Republican in '08, than the Mothercorp going into Canada Day producing a documentary on the pro-life movement in the great C'da with a positive spin. Ain't gonna happen. Ever. Zip. Zippo. Zilch chancerino.

Not that I alledge any sort of conspiracy at the CBC. I just know how television works and these decisions are usually made by very small groups of people in very high places. Kind of like that Robert Redford movie Quiz Show. It was never in cards. The winner most likely has already been determined by a small group of programmers, producers, flunkies and flacks.

Alls I'm sayin' is don't sweat it when you lose. You were never supposed to get this far.

And that's how these things go.

HAPPY FATHER'S DAY

2007-06-17T10:45:00.000-07:00

My Father passed away when I was 17 years old, on March the 5th 1988.

Through my father I came to have the love of film and culture that I have today.

My father (along with my mother) helped teach me right from wrong.

He helped fortify in me the notion that facts and truth are two completely different concepts.

My father used to take me on long drives around my hometown where we would talk about music and life.

My father died of a heart failure after a long struggle with it for the better part of the 1980's. He never lived to see me graduate from high school or university; he never saw me get my first job or met my first date.

He never got to meet my beautiful and lovely young wife.

But I believe he is out there and is aware.

Today, I 'll pray for my dad. I'll pray for all dads in the hope that they see the responsibility that is enshrined unto them if they have children.

I'll also pray that society comes to recognize and respect the important role that fathers must play in the lives of their children whether they be boys or girls.

Happy Father's Day Dad!

PS. Please note that after long consideration, it has been determined that for now and the foreseeable future, all comments on this blog will be moderated.

As usual, I welcome any and all comments from the entire breadth of the political spectrum.

What are not welcome are vulgarity, threats, trolls, or links to material that are extremely questionable (or illegal) in nature.

Those who have read me for the few years I have been doing this know that I always welcome dissent and differing views. But when that gets taken for granted, I have to remember that this blog is ultimately about my freedom of expression - being able to get out my views without feeling like I am being threatened, harrassed or compromised.

Best.

MICHAEL MOORE'S SICKO PIRATED ON NET

2007-06-15T15:14:00.000-07:00

Many websites are now reporting that Michael Moore's Sicko is easily available for download over the net.

This was an issue for Hostel Part II last week when presentable workprint quality versions were found on sale as bootlegs in Seattle. They soon flooded the net and many think that this is at least a partial reason as to why the film disappointed at the box-office.

With Sicko however, the piracy comes two weeks before the film's release. It is also made interesting by Moore himself and Harvey Weinstein's socialist politics. Two weeks on the net is a hell of a lot of downloads.

If Moore really believes the Bush administration is on the verge of confiscating his masters of Sicko and this isn't all a publicity stunt, then should he not be happy that the people are able to access his work?

Shouldn't the 'man of the people' be elated that the people can see his film and spread it around?

I do not advocate piracy or theft of intellectual copyright, but Moore's sanctimonious hypocrisy is slowly coming back to bite him in the ass.

He is the equivalent of an 80's televangalist for his generation. Jim and Tammy Faye Baker in denims and a baseball cap.

He is losing credibility by the minute and as of now, still has not acknowledged the piracy on his website. I am actually not convinced he didn't leak the print himself- (It was my only chance before the feds took the flick away from me, see what all the controversy was about!) - but having said that, I will be curious as to what spin he and Harvey Weinstein put on this.

Let the three ring circus begin!

DUKE LACROSSE : FRAMED FROM THE START

2007-06-15T07:48:00.000-07:00

Here is a video of one of the Duke University Lacrosse Players breaking down on the stand during the trial of the Duke prosecutor.

I can't articulate how I feel about this case powerfully enough.

All I can say, is that when the case first broke well over a year ago, I was up watching MSNBC. They were interviewing (I believe) one of the top members of the school's student council.

She was shaking and very passionate on camera. She went on to tell the interviewer that the next day her and many other students would be protesting the Duke players by going on campus and banging the drums of oppression like they do in the third world to expose how the white patriarchy of the capitalist first world exploits personhoods of colour...or something like that. The typical left-wing rhetorical drill.

I called my wife into the room immediately and said...They're being framed. It's all an ideological set-up.

I never waivered from that position because a similar incident happened to another student when I was at Queen's, as I have written about.

I'll end with a quote from Abraham Lincoln:

"The philosophy of the classroom today will be the philosophy of government tomorrow."

Do you like the philosophy of today's classroom?

THE WHITE STRIPES : PRO LIFE?

2007-06-14T08:25:00.000-07:00

New York Magazine seems to think so. Apparently a version of their new album was leaked and the song in question is called "Effect and Cause". A portion of the review:

"..."Effect and Cause," a country number that would seem to definitively out White as a social conservative. Luckily, in between are a few of the rudest, most amplifier-melting blues explosions the band has ever committed to tape. The White Stripes: wrong on abortion, right on rocking. "

The official album and lyrics are not out until June 19, but they performed the song, a mid-tempo country-blues track, in Britain on Jools Hollands' show.

A sampling of the lyrics based on that performance indicates that the song is definitely about taking responsibility in life for one's own actions.

The reference to abortion would seem to be the line:

"You can't blame a baby for her pregnant ma".

Is that pro-life? Digging a little deeper, it seemes Jack White, aka John Gillis, was raised as part of a large Irish-Catholic family and was very involved in his parish growning up as an altar boy. He once considered being a priest. Both his parents worked at their local parish and he has mentioned meeting Pope John Paul II as a boy.

In addition, other interviews and articles mention his Catholic upbringing and his ongoing studying of the philosophies of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. Other songs on the upcoming album reference St. Andrew and martyrs.

Taken into account, the pro-life angle seems to have more validity.

I have always loved The White Stripes regardless of politics. One should obviously not limit oneself to only consuming art that agrees with their worldview. That is silly. But if one can find art that agrees with their worldview and is quality, one should definitely endorse it.

I have always suspected there were more of us, in the entertainment industry than people would like to admit, but were afraid to come out, as it were.

The White Stripes play The Molson Amphitheatre on July 5. I look forward to it.

VIOLENCE OF LEFT-WING BLOGGERS

2007-06-13T06:37:00.000-07:00

I have spoken long of the blatant intolerance of the progressive left. Whether it's sending bullets to a bishop in Italy or framing kids for rape on a university campus such as in the Duke case, the New Left movement seems to be coming into its own with a Stalinesque mind-set that is proving very damaging to Western Culture.

But when other, more mild progressives start to take notice...this is when things get interesting.

Joe Klein, from Time magazine, and a liberal, had an interesting observation about his encounters with left-wing bloggers.

"But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable."

Now, Joe is not right on every count; he blames people such as Rush Limbaugh for making the discourse more harsh. Quite the opposite, the harshness of the disourse can be traced back to the parents of the contemporary progressive movement, the liberal baby boomers of the 60's and 70's. They prided themselves on riots, vulgarity and overturning any civility in our culture.

Now, many of their own are encountering it and not liking what they see. But the level of violence in their language has also been ratched up. Some of us on BT had some encounters recently with left-wing bloggers and the language is vile. The violence of tone is decrepit.

Some recent comments on this blog reflect this and a quick trip to rabble or any number of progressive bloggers or lib blog sites will illustrate this.

Now the overwhelming majority of these people are just blowing hot air because they know they will never have to be held accountable. But violence in thought usually comes before violence in action and one can see how many of the New Left, devoid of ration, logic, reason or even a common sense or morality can easily devolve into mob tactics and thuggery.

Wanna see some good ol'fashioned American street violence? Go to a peace rally.

This sort of mentality usually takes root when people can sense they are losing a battle. When you know that you do not have truth on your side. It's one thing to pass a law through judicial fiat, it is quite another thing to win people's hearts and minds in a culture.

Most people live as conservatives, even if they do not acknowledge it.

They crave stability, family, tradition, security and health.

They do not crave promiscuity, broken homes, moral relativism, drugs and a nanny state.

The New Left is winning many battles in the courts, but not as many in the hearts and minds of people's day to day actions.

I remember when women received the "right" to walk around topless in Toronto it was hailed as a great day of liberation for women. Feminists hoped all of the young women would be walking around topless as a show of independence. But it didn't happen.

The New Left knows this and are coming unhinged.

Churches still exist. Women still want to have children. Children would rather play with a Transformer than a condom. Communism has failed. No one wants another terrorist attack. Hollywood revenues are shrinking.

There is not much I take solace in with regards to the left these days. I do take some solace that even liberal journos like Joe Klein are slowly starting to see a bigger picture.

SSM ACTIVISTS DEMONSTRATE TOLERANCE BY SENDING BULLET TO ARCHBISHOP

2007-06-12T12:41:00.000-07:00

Some wonderful, enlightened, kind and compassionate supporters of same-sex marriage in Italy have demonstrated their tolerance for the pro-traditional marriage, Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa, Italy by sending him bullets in the mail.

That's right. Tolerance and love now seems to be measured by...bullets.

The story has been reported in Lifesite News, but was originated by The Associated Press and has been reported by countless other websites and news organizations.

I know, I know what you're thinking; "...but, Nicol, you ol' dinosaur, stick in the mud, troglodyte; bullets have been redefined to mean love, tolerance and compassion. Get with the times."

But waitaminute; didn't the King of Ontario, his Royal Progressive Highnessnessness, Dalton McGuinty say:

"Handguns are designed for one purpose only – to shoot people..."

See, now I am confused. His Royal Progressive Highnessnessness says guns are only meant to shoot people. The inference being that is bad.

But...but...pro-SSM activists are sending bullets, those things used to load guns, which we have established kill people, to an Archbishop.

And we know pro-SSM activists are all encompassing goodness, love and ten different flavours of Ben and Jerry's, cause of the week ice cream on a sunshiny day.

And we know the Archbishop is bad, cause, well....he's an Archbishop. They're bad. I know they're bad because the denizens of The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, CBC and Tom Hanks tell me so.

I'm confused. Is the bullet to the archbishop good or bad?

Is it representative of hate and bigotry or love and compassion?

I'm thinkin' it's bad, hateful and bigoted but...hey...I'm just one of the dinosaur, troglodyte un-enlightened, peon class.

Can a progressive out there set me straight?

SICKO MICHAEL "PT" MOORE SEEKS REFUGE IN CANADA

2007-06-12T06:05:00.000-07:00

Gotta give it to Michael Moore. The man truly has become the PT Barnum of the new millenium.

Now he claims he is so persecuted by George Bush that he had to hide one of the 'master copies' of his 'big, boisterous, summer comedy' Sicko in Canada.

This is chicanery of the highest order. Hyperbole designed to titillate and drum up support for his film. And it will work for many.

I have already encountered otherwise bright people who genuinely think he is being investigated because he was trying to do good. This is what happens when a culture loses sight of the philosophical concept of truth. It is why Moore always says his facts are right. He never refers to truth.

The facts are that Michael Moore is being investigated because he tried to get health care for Ground Zero workers in Cuba.

Sounds sympathetic.

The truth is that he and Harvey Weinstein concocted an elaborate stunt that ensured Moore would get investigated by the government which has had a trade embargo against Cuba since 1962.

He comandeered a boat to take the ill folk to Guantanamo Bay, where some pencil pusher obviously would have no choice but to turn him down. Off to Communist Cuba he goes.

Then, just as likely as a molotov cocktail going off at a peace rally, he gets investigated; as he had planned all along. Just in time for the release of his barn-burnin', Jack Chick Haw Hawin' , summer release.

The workers are exploited and he makes millions.

Now, after Cannes, he pulls out the horn again and says he is so terrified of the American government that he had to stash a master copy of his zany, wacky, blockbuster summer knee-slapper Sicko in the big C'da.

I am glad more and more people on the left are seeing through Mickey's schtick, and he is entertaining as a filmmaker. However the notion that his gimmicks, which have gotten so obvious, are still believed by so many is troubling.

But then again, these people still believe Jordan Manners was killed by a gun collector in Richmond Hill.

DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DIE?

2007-06-10T11:10:00.001-07:00

Of course many Canadians think so. It's about choice, they say.

But is it?

Should a depressed teenager girl who has just been dumped by her boyfriend and no longer wants to live have the 'choice' to doctor assisted suicide?

Most would say no.

Then the issue no longer is one of choice. It's about an empirical standard of what good quality of life is. Hence, pop culture agrees that a sick elderly person does not have a good standard or quality of life and should be 'allowed' to terminate their own life.

But once society has an empirical standard of what a good 'quality of life' is and we establish choice is not really the issue, how long is it to when elderly people who society believes have a poor quality of life but who want to live should have pressure on them to die?

What if they do not want to die but are a strain on the socialist medical system?

What if they are no longer productive and are deemed a burden on their families?

What then of people who have Down's Syndrome, the blind or infirmed?

Once we establish that the issue is not one of choice but one of society trying to establish who has a desirable 'quality of life' we can quickly see where the rabbit hole leads.

I am not surprised these beliefs are held most strongly among people with university degrees.

And much like every 'progressive' idea modern secular society chooses because 'Thursday is better than Wednesday 'cause it comes next', this will come to fruition.

But do not worry. When the time comes...you'll most likely be for it too.

THE POPE DID NOT SAY "JEWS KILLED CHRIST"

2007-05-30T11:40:00.000-07:00

One of the reasons I became conservative in university, was that I could see where the left was going in terms of parsing language and facts to distort truth.

Today on the Blogging Tories, Backseat Blogger tried to gin up his/her readership with a blatantly distorted 'rabble' style article that said "Pope says Joos killed Jesus".

The blogger provides a link to this article , where the Patriarch of the Coptian Christian Church makes the horrible charge. Nowhere is the Pope mentioned in the context that the blogger states. Many readers, including myself, were lured into this article and headline so we called him/her out on the blatant misrepresentation.

The blogger then tried to 'rationalize' by giving two wikipedia links where the head of the Coptian Christian Church is referred to as pope. Yet virtually nowhere else is the head referred to as pope. Instead the proper modern term is Patriarch. Indeed, in their rebuttal, the ADL does not refer to him as pope and neither does the article.

I make an issue of this, not because Backseat Blogger has any influence (he/she does not), but because if we are to call people like Michael Moore and the CBC to the mat when they parse language and facts to create a new 'truth' or perception, then the same must also be done to conservatives, Republicans or Blogging Tories.

The blogger in question, clearly wanted to have a salacious headline to get readers and in fact mislead many to think Pope Benedict had said something he did not.

I do not know what Backseat Blogger's own personal motives are, but when the right begins to distort truth as much as the left, we have to question it. Even if it is on a small little blog. The headline was featured prominantly on the Blogging Tories headline roll and many will see it and be misled. That is unfortunante.

Like many readers, I would call on Backseat Blogger to apologize for such a gross misinterpretation and not try to parse out on a technicality.

Coloquial language counts. Understanding context counts. Larger perception and truth counts.

Nobody reading that headline thought..."Oh, the Patriarch of the Coptian Christian Church"...they thought Pope Benedict; and the blogger was full aware of that.

What with Arnold having a love-in with Dalton, John Tory patronizing a 'queer youth festival', and the Republicans rudderless, I have to wonder if conservatism is about to enter into the same schism as it did 15 years ago, when conservatives broke away from the left-wing of their flanks.

That led to Bill Clinton for two terms and the Conservatives in the wilderness in Canada for over a decade.

Sorry to see some Blogging Tories members starting to go down that road.

THE COMMUNIST VS. THE CATHOLIC

2007-05-24T09:08:00.000-07:00

Men claiming to be Christians or under the auspices of the Catholic Church have done many things over the past that Christ would not have approved of. Many of them have been acknowledged and rightly apologized for (the Inquisition, the Crusades), while many (also the Inquisition, the Crusades) have been overstated grossly by detractors (academics, Marxists, feminists, etc.) in order to portray the faith in a more unfavourable light.

But when Hugo Chavez, a tinpot of a dictator who cleaves to an ideology that has killed more people in 110 years than Christianity has in 2000 tells the Pope he is 'offended' by his remarks and demands an apology, I have to drop my replica papal scepter.

It takes a special kind of lunatic dictator who can shut down an opposition television station one week and demand an apology from the Pope the next.

I am glad Pope Benedict clarified his remarks, but I am also thankful he did not flat out apologize.

Will our culture ever get enough perspective on the horrors of atheistic Marxism and communism that we can call it the evil that it is? There is a shop in Toronto on the west side of Yonge St. near College, that has in its window a slavish dedication to communism and Stalinist Russia.

Why is this tolerated when if the same were done of Hitler and National Socialist Germany it would be shut down inside thirty seconds (and rightly so)?

Why is the University of Toronto allowed to host a weekend festival on the joys of Marxism/Communism and still be taken seriously, by the National Post no less?

Here is a fairly comprehensive website of human atrocities throughout the centuries.

Mao and Stalin, even under modest estimates, still beat the Catholic Church and Christianity, yet on your local, friendly neighbourhood university campus, they are still seen as friends of the proletariat.

Ludicrous.

But the Liberal Party still has the most room for growth in Canada dontchaknow?

DALTON RECEIVED COMMUNION

2007-05-18T05:55:00.000-07:00

This is a topic that has come up before and will no doubt continue to come up; that of Catholic politicians and Holy Communion.

Dalton McGuinty's glib comments on the matter are ill-conceived and misinformed. As reported by Lifesite news:

Chris Morley, Press Secretary in the Office of the Premier, told LifeSiteNews.com that "the Premier's comments stand and are a matter of public record." He also noted that the Premier declined to answer whether or not he would stop receiving communion because of the Pope's statements and his continued political support for abortion.

This past Christmas Eve I found myself in a situation where I could not attend the church that I normally attend, so I went to another one closer to where I was located. I went to an early evening mass at a Roman Catholic Church just east of St. Clair and Yonge St. in Toronto. As the mass progressed, I noticed that on the other side of the aisle there was a very familiar figure present. It was of course, Dalton McGuinty. Yes, he received Communion.

Make of that what you will.

What the pope is saying to Catholic politicians is that if you say you are Catholic, troll for Catholic votes in the Catholic community before an election and then get elected as a Catholic, could you...ummm..., please act Catholic. And if you do not act Catholic then we will tell people you are not.

Capisce.

In other words, if you sell someone a can labelled Coke and they buy it thinking there is Coke inside, make sure it is filled with Coke and not Pepsi.

Capisce.

There are politicians both Liberal and Conservative who run as Catholics and act Catholic once in office. Dan McTeague comes to mind as does Jason Kenney. But the Liberal Party and its cohorts in the media are making it more difficult for one to be a Liberal and Catholic. And it all comes down to two issues; abortion and same sex 'marriage'. If Dalton all of a sudden changed his view on those issues they would not allow him to sign his own nomination paper.

But Dalton's comments that he represents "...all kinds of different backgrounds, different faiths, different cultures, different traditions..." are ludicrous. Dalton represents the people who agree with his views on these issues, no more no less.

Does this make Dalton a 'bad' person? No. It does make him a confused and dishonest one. He is from that liberal generation of the 60's that believes you keep your religion under your mattress, hidden away from people. That generation that defines themselves based on the divisive notions of race, gender and sexual orientation.

As for his Press Secretary reaffirming his view in favour of abortion, I would take this as Dalton directly issuing a challenge to the Catholic community. He is flaunting his arrogance and seeing how far he can go.

I have made my views on ex-communication of Catholic politicians very open in this forum. If they keep pushing and pushing, the church really has no choice. It is regrettable, but as with Paul Martin before him or Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry or Jean Chretien, sooner or later someone needs to be the example. Now that should only be a last resort after much compassionate talk and consultation...but sooner or later the process needs to begin.

I hope the priest at Dalton's parish (if Dalton goes on a regular basis) talks to him about this issue and it is not left alone.

Better yet, I would love to see both the Liberal and NDP parties be more tolerant of people of faith who have differing views on controversial issues. Perhaps then we can have the government that we deserve.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE TOUGH GUYS GONE?

2007-05-15T08:09:00.000-07:00

That's the question that Brit filmmaker Richard Jobson asks, as have many of recent years. Even James Cameron has made note in casting Avatar that there were no masculine American actors he could choose from, so he went Australian.

"Has anyone seen a modern day version of James Coburn, Burt Lancaster, Lee Marvin or William Holden on the big screen in recent years? No, you haven't and you're not about to.
Forget it, they don't exist. They're extinct, beaten into submission by the wet, limp, chinless world of modern cinema."

Many have lamented the lack of geniunely masculine male actors on screen as role models. Their's is the legacy of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and Charles Bronson. Even some classically overt left-wing actors were awesome at projecting a masculine outback image. Who can deny the rugged cool of Paul Newman or Robert Redford in their prime?

But, film and the arts are currently seen as traditions of the New Left. Given that the two biggest influences culturally on the New Left are feminism and queer theory, you now get 'tough guy' actors such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jake Gyllenhaal, Ben Affleck and the like.

And sadly, the notion of 'tough guy' is so looked down upon in modern culture that the ones who could do it, Russell Crowe, Gerard Butler etc. don't want to inherit the mantle.

Perhaps the toughest actor in cinema right now is on TV with Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer. I met him once and must say he passed the test. He was in a bar at Yonge and Bloor slugging back alcohol in a group and smoking cigarettes. A friend of mine and I approached him and he was very friendly with a firm grip of a handshake as he wished us a safe ride home.

More than ever there is a need for conservatives to shake off their stereotypes and enter the arts. It will not change on its own.

Unless of course, unlike me, you are one of those people who does not burst out into laughter at the sight of Leonardo DiCaprio with a gun.

OF "DICTATORS" AND "POLICE STATES"

2007-05-14T11:34:00.000-07:00

One of the most powerful tools the New Left has in its arsenal is the weapon of words. More powerful than even conventional weapons or coercion, the power of language to demonize and stigmatize is something the left has mastered.

This article in the NY Times, linked to by The Drudge Report mildly criticizes Rudolph Giuliani in the days following 9/11 as a "benevolent dictator". A man who had one purpose and gently let standards fall to achieve it.

Over the weekend we saw an article by Sun Media columnist Greg Weston refer to Stephan Harper as running a "police state". The Weston article is actually quite laughable in its combined level of hysteria, hyperbole and condescension. Yet, it is what the left excels at and why the right so often falls behind.

Why have a discussion about global warming when one can merely call anyone who questions you a 'denier'?

Why debate the institution of marriage when you can just call anyone who disagrees with you a 'bigot'?

Why talk about the need for improving our health care system when you can just call anyone who brings it into question, 'callous' or 'cruel'?

Are you pro-life or anti-abortion? Pro-choice or pro-abortion? The left's control of language through political correctness has been one of thier great keys to success in marginalizing those who disagree with them. It also helps them to legitimatize things that would normally be unnacceptable.

No one wants their daughter to grow up to be a 'hooker'; howabout a 'sex-trade worker'?

Are you 'promiscuous' or 'open-minded'? Do you 'abuse drugs' or do you 'liberate your mind'?

Does you professor 'educate' you or 'indoctrinate' you.

Why do you think modern leftists will refer to Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez as 'socialists'? Because it does not carry the same stigma as the word 'communist', which both men undoubtedly are.

Be very careful of the language you choose and the phrasings of things. Be aware of what people are telling you and what they really mean.

A 'socialist' friend told me once she was ill so she went to the doctor and asked for 'compassionate medicine'. I did not understand her. I asked her to explain and she just kept repeating the phrase over and over. Finally I said, "you mean a freebie, you want medicine for free." She said yes. Now she is not poor, and could have paid, but her politics made her not want to. Her choice of language made it sound as though anyone who disagreed with her was not compassionate.

Do not let the left define you. Define yourself with the language you choose and do the same to them.

Only then can the New Left cultures spell be broken.

RATED R FOR SMOKING

2007-05-11T04:27:00.000-07:00

As the story in the Hollywood Reporter says, films can now potentially be rated R for smoking.

So now, classic films such as Breakfast at Tiffany's, Jailhouse Rock and The Seven Year Itch will be thought to be in the same moral category as I Spit On Your Grave, Hostel and The Hills Have Eyes.

Funny how the same people who insist that smoking in films affects kids are usually the same ones who say films have no impact with regards to other issues of morality.

THE URBAN BIGOT: A DEFINITION, PART I

2007-05-10T11:15:00.000-07:00

Following a link on Relapsed Catholic I found a thread at Small Dead Animals entitled The Urban Bigot by Kate McMillan. It's such a simple term, but one that hits the bullz-eye so well, that I wish I came up with it.

I figure if enough people use this term in our culture, it will hold, so I will do my small part by offering a definition.

The Urban Bigot:

Is usually white and earns no less than 50 K a year. If he is earning less and is in the arts or food service industry, he will not pay taxes.

Claims to love the poor and ethnic, while making sure she never has to live near them, usually residing in wealthy beachfront properties or areas with the suffix -dale or -hattan, instead.

Thinks eating Thai Food, while listening to Motown Music before reading about the sexual techniques in Kama Sutra makes him knowledgable about the immigrant experience.

Had a high school average of C+ and got into a second tier university where she did absolutely no studying and thought being drunk, stoned and promiscuous 15 hours a day led to higher enlightenment. Most of her professors agreed.

Thinks racist language is wrong, unless he is watching a Quentin Tarantino movie where the prominent usage of words such as 'bitch', 'ho' and 'nigga' will be deemed sophisticated and post-modern.

Thinks misogyny is wrong, unless she is hearing about how Ann Coulter or Condoleezza Rice needs to be sexually assaulted for their views, then it is a nuanced response to the complex issues of the day.

Will shout 'Kyoto' and 'Darwin' when stuck in a debate, even though he has never read either of them.

Boycotts Mel Gibson movies, but thinks Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore give voice to the oppressed.

Thinks John Lennon's Imagine is the gospel upon which all human interaction should be based. She also likes Ass Like That by Eminem and My Humps by The Black Eyed Peas.

Thinks the Pope's views on abortion and homosexuality are intolerant and bigoted. He believes the same views held by Islam and Buddhism on the subjects are a right-wing smear job.

Believes you should always question authority, unless you question the authority of the courts, academe or Oprah Winfrey. Then you are a 'fascist' and a 'denier'.

Thinks giving health benefits to a crying child in pain who needs a root canal is unnecessary spending but government paying for a confused transgender teenager who wants an operation in Sweden is the hallmark of a 'just society'.

Hates Christmas but looks at you funny if you cross him off of your shopping list.

Coming soon...Part II

COULD CULTURE OF DESPAIR IN ACADEMIA LEAD TO VIOLENCE?

2007-04-18T12:22:00.000-07:00

There will be much said in the coming weeks about the horrible tragedy that occurred this week at Virginia Tech. Much will revolve around the very hotly politicized issues of guns. Indeed, the blood was barely dry on the victims bodies when I turned on the CBC and the same talking heads we are accustomed to seeing exploited the tragedy to play "nya, nya" on the horrors of American culture and gun violence.

Now I am not someone who believes anyone should be given a gun willy nilly. Responsible people should be allowed weapons but there should be government control as to who can get them and how long it takes. But having said that, it finally occurred to me that there is now a question we should also be asking:

Why do so many of these tragedies occur on university campuses, colleges or high schools: in other words, places of academe?

Columbine, Concordia, Dawson College, Ecole Polytechnique, Red Lake, Henry Foss, Rocori High School...the list is quite lengthy.

Now obviously, places of academe are not the only institutions where shootings occur, but can we not at least admit a very high number of them do.

Why?

What culture do modern day institutions of academia impose on faculty and students that makes so many of them distraught and confused?

Could it be an academic culture that insists on a philosophy of relativism, aethism and the denial of any moral absolutes or truths? A repressed culture that assumes the worst of human behaviour and then tries to 'cure' you of it.

The first thing that they tried to figuratively beat into me at Queen's University from 1989-93 was that, there was no God, no truth, no moral absolutes. They continually propagated an agenda of class warfare (hating the rich) and a pure non-science based confusion on issues such as gender and sexual identity. Could these be the nihilistic ingredients to creating a generation or two of students and faculty so disjointed from reality that it causes them to not be able to have proper coping skills?

Now, first and foremost, these killings are the resuts of indviduals gone to the edge and the individual must take responsibility for his/her actions.

But could the culture of despair, so propagated in modern day academia, not also be partially responsible for driving so many people over the brink?

I think that is a question that society must start asking.

CHE GUEVARA WITH A WHOLE LOT OF GOLDEN TOPPING

2007-04-01T04:36:00.000-07:00

Film industry insider and columnist Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere has read director Steven Soderbergh's two scripts on the life of Che Guevara entitled, The Argentine and Guerilla.

Both films are to be released in 2008 and Wells believes they are virtually assured Oscar status.

But what of the portrayal of our affable, ubiquitous communist friend?

Do we see the real Che? The one who led death squads and inquisitions with glee, shot men and women of the cloth and worshipped Joseph Stalin?

Not according to Wells.

"In this respect the Cuban righties are not that wrong. The Argentine contains no La Cabana depictions -- nothing about what happened in the wake of Castro and Guevara''s triumph, and no reflections at all about the kind of country Cuba became under Castro since then. "

"And Guevara is clearly portrayed in a flattering light. As far as these screenplays represent what the films will ultimately be (the rule-of-thumb being that scripts are only blueprints), Buchman's Guevara is an imperfect but admirable fellow -- com- plex and dogged, tenacious but plagued by asthma, brave and strong but capable of error, rigid and dogmatic and, in Guerilla, oblivious to the basic shape of things, and yet basically decent and humane and certainly courageous to the last."

While a film such as 300 cleans up at the box office; a film that speaks to themes of chivalry, honour and dying for a cause one believes in; Hollywood instead is financing a doubled tiered effort to continue to propagandize about the legacy of one of the left's sacred icons.

Now these films will win awards, but they will also flop.

The problem is, even though films such as this, Jesus Camp, Deliver Us From Evil, Shooter, Babel or the de-Christianized Children of Men flop hard at the box office, they gain critical respect and a following on video.

In Toronto alone, it is hard to not walk anywhere in the Annex area and not see posters for screenings of Jesus Camp. Many of my friends have made references to the film since it became available on video. References that tell me they believe most Christians (of all denominations) are like depicted in the film.

Do not at all think that many of the problems the West faces now are not at least in some part caused by how much propaganda Hollywood has churned out in recent decades.

Films can reflect a culture, they can also persuade it.

CHOCOLATE JESUS CANCELLED: FREE SPEECH WINS!

2007-03-30T13:59:00.000-07:00

There is no contradiction in my post title.

In a free society-EVERYONE-has the right to free speech.
That means the artist. That means the people complaining to the artist.

No one said they had to take it down. No laws were passed against the exhibit. They just couldn't handle the heat.

Oh, they thought the Catholics would just sit down and take it like they did with "Virgin Mary in Cow Dung" and "Piss Christ".

C'est la vie.

As to the "death threats"...

Did they file police complaints?

Is there an on-going investigation?

Are emails being collected, phones being traced and wires being tapped?

When this happens I'll believe there were genuine death threats and not just the hysterical rantings of leftists who couldn't handle the controversy. Even The Dixie Chicks showed more cojones than this.

Hey, I've gotten death threats sent to my private email before with the author telling me he would come to my home and saw my head off.

Deal. Life goes on.

A victory for speech happened today, and I for one am glad.

"HOW MODERN LIBERALS THINK" by former Bill Maher Writer, Evan Sayet

2007-03-27T12:12:00.000-07:00

Here is a You Tube link via the Drudge Report of a speech by Evan Sayet entitled, "How Modern Liberals Think".

Sayet was a former headwriter for both Arsenio Hall and Bill Maher who, after years in Hollywood, realized something different after Sept 11 and went on a journey.

This speech is about 30 minutes long with a Q& A afterwards and it is quite frankly one of the best I have recently seen on dissecting Classical Liberalism from the New Left and the importance of changing the culture.

He hits on all of the topics that I have written about, such as the importance of changing academia, the influence of Hollywood on modern thought and the utopian or cultural Marxist goals of the New Left/Modern Liberal.

This is a serious speech and not one filled with zingers and one-liners but Sayet is an engaging speaker and you could do a lot worse than spending 47 minutes watching him.

Enjoy.

LIBERALS=NEW COKE

2007-03-27T07:21:00.000-07:00

Others may say things more profound or insightful on this topic, but the fact that Quebec has just given 41 seats to a right-wing party in its provincial legislature is quite an accomplishment.

There has been a growing conservatism growing in French culture for some time now; indications of this are in many places...from the Quebec documentary filmmakers who took socialism to task to (even in France) the potential for Nicolas Sarkozy to become the new French President.

Obviously, massive cultural changes occur on a very long time-line and this is now only two elections where we can see growth in French-Canadian culture, but it seems to be more than a passing fad.

41 seats is not just a protest vote. Especially when it is for a party which stands for things that are usually diametrically opposed to what Quebecers are supposed to stand for.

Given that I have some business dealings in Quebec as of late, I find this very encouraging.

Maybe the first Western culture to explore pure secular-aethism is now prone to seeing its flaws.

It also is a testament to the fact that the Liberal brand is increasingly not what it used to be.

Perhaps more and more people will begin to see it as New Coke.